FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2023 filing
Brooklyn Dumpling Shop litigation history
What Brooklyn Dumpling Shop disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2023 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
- 6
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases
- None stated
- Bankruptcy (Item 4)
- Disclosed · an officer
- Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer
- Filing year
- 2023
- Disclosures cover the prior ten years
Extracted from the 2023 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 3: litigation
5 concluded actions all naming CEO Stratis Morfogen (and some others) as defendants related to prior business concepts unrelated to this franchise: trademark/unfair competition ($500K award), wage/hour settlements (FLSA/NYLL). Franchisor BDS Franchising, LLC was not a named party.
Item 3 (litigation) · 6 matters disclosed
Litigation cases
Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)
Concluded (6)
Mei v. DP Hospitality Group, LLC et al.
settledBrought by a third party · Stratis Morfogen and Mr. Cummins · filed 2019-04-03 · 1:19-cv-03309- JLC
“… Case No. 1:19-cv-03309- JLC 04/03/2019 Plaintiff, a former employee of DP Hospitality, LLC (“DP”), brought an action against DP and certain of its owners, including Mr. Morfogen and Mr. Cummins, alleging violations of FLSA and NY Labor for failure to pay certain overtime and wages.”Page 12 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “ultimately entered into a settlement in 2019 where: (i) both parties released each other of all claims; and (ii) DP agreed to make a payment totaling $10,041 ($6,300 to Plaintiff and $3,741 to Plaintiff’s counsel) as part of the settlement, without any admission of liability by either party.”
Tcaciuc v. Southampton, LLC et al.
settledBrought by a third party · Stratis Morfogen · filed 2017-03-06 · 2:17- cv-01251-ADS-AKT
“… Case No. 2:17- cv-01251-ADS-AKT 03/06/2017 Plaintiff, a former employee of Southampton, LLC (“SH”), brought an action against SH and Mr. Morfogen , alleging violations of FLSA and NY Labor for failure to pay certain overtime and wages.”Page 11 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “ultimately entered into a settlement in August 2017 where: (i) both parties released each other of all claims; and (ii) defendants agreed to make a payment of $5,000 ($2,871 to Plaintiff and rest to its counsel) as part of the settlement, without any admission of liability by either party.”
Sandoval et al. v. Philippe North America Restaurants, LLC et al.
concludedBrought by a third party · Stratis Morfogen · filed 2016-01-27 · 1:16-cv-00615- VSB
“… Case No. 1:16-cv-00615- VSB 01/27/2016 Plaintiffs, former employees of Philippe restaurants, alleged that Defendants (1) failed to pay minimum wage in violation of the FLSA and NYLL;”Page 11 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Gu et al. v. Philippe North America Restaurants LLC et al.
settledBrought by a third party · Stratis Morfogen · filed 2013-06-05 · 2:13-cv- 03221-ADS-WDW
“… Case No. 2:13-cv- 03221-ADS-WDW 06/05/2013 Plaintiffs, former employees of Phillipe North America Restaurants, LLC (“PNA”), brought an action against PNA and all alleged owners/partners of the same (including Mr. Morfogen), alleging violations of FLSA and NY Labor for failure to pay certain overtime and wages.”Page 12 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “entered into an otherwise confidential settlement agreement in October 2013 where: (i) the parties released each other of all claims; and (ii) PNA agreed to make a payment of $5,000 ($2,871 to Plaintiff and remaining balance to its counsel) as part of the settlement, without any admission of liability by either party.”
Michael Chow et al. v. Chak Chau et al.
judgmentStratis Morfogen · filed 2012-11-26 · 11th Circuit Court of Appeals · 12- 15994-EE
“… Appeals Docket No. 12- 15994-EE, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals 11/26/2012 Appeal by Plaintiff of the decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to vacate a $500,000 award for damages that was initially imposed against Mr. Morfogen and in favor of Plaintiff Michael Chow.”Page 11 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Miro et al. v. Philippe Chow Boca, LLC et al.
settledBrought by a third party · Stratis Morfogen · filed 2012-05-18 · 9:12-cv-80544- DMM
“… Case No. 9:12-cv-80544- DMM 05/18/2012 Plaintiffs, former employees of Phillipe Boca Chow, LLC (“PBC”), brought an action against PBC and all alleged owners/partners of the same (including Mr. Morfogen), alleging violations of FLSA and NY Labor for failure to pay certain overtime and wages.”Page 11 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “ultimately entered into a settlement in 2014 where: (i) the parties released each other of all claims; and (ii) defendants agreed to make $30,000 payment to Plaintiffs’ counsel as part of the settlement, without any admission of liability by either party.”
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.
Disclosed in the 2023 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 4: bankruptcy
Officer Stratis Morfogen subject to two involuntary bankruptcy petitions (2013 dismissed 2014; 2014 petition discharged 2017) and one adversarial proceeding (dismissed 2015). Franchisor itself has no bankruptcy history.
Disclosure signals that moved the score
How this shows up in the verdict
- Multiple employment-related lawsuits (FLSA violations) suggest systemic labor compliance or wage-and-hour issues affecting franchisee operations
- Trademark infringement/unfair competition litigation involving officers/principals raises brand integrity and leadership credibility concerns
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?