Skip to main content
FranchiseVerdict

FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

BW Premier Collection and BW Signature Collection litigation history

What BW Premier Collection and BW Signature Collection 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
25
Item 3, as counted in the filing
Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases
$500K
As stated in Item 3
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

Franchisor as plaintiff in most cases collecting unpaid fees/dues from terminated members; several regulatory consent orders from CA, MD, WA, VA for franchise registration violations; counterclaims from former members alleging wrongful termination.

Item 3 (litigation) · 25 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (17)

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. 1025 Beach LLC, Joga Sing Hayre, et al.

    settled

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2022-10-05 · Arizona District Court · 2:22-cv-01696-CDB

    “… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:22-cv-01696-CDB (Filed October 5, 2022;”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Far Rockaway Former Member would pay us $160,000 in installment payments over 18 months. Best Western International, Inc. v. Brookfield Ventures, LLC, et al., Arizona District Court Case No. 2:22-cv-00037-JAT (Filed January 10, 2022;”

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. 1Nonly Phi Mar, LLC, Philip Levine, et al.

    settled

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2022-03-21 · Arizona District Court · 2:22-cv-00440-MTL

    “… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:22-cv-00440-MTL (Filed March 21, 2022;”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Dallas Former Member would pay us $223,000 in installment payments over 13 months.”

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. Brookfield Ventures, LLC, et al.

    settled

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2022-01-10 · Arizona District Court · 2:22-cv-00037-JAT

    “… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:22-cv-00037-JAT (Filed January 10, 2022;”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Milwaukee-Brookfield Former Member would pay us $25,000. Best Western International, Inc. v. 1Nonly Phi Mar, LLC, Philip Levine, et al., Arizona District Court Case No. 2:22-cv-00440-MTL (Filed March 21, 2022;”

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. 764 4th Avenue Associates, LLC

    settled

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2020-09-08 · Arizona District Court · 2:20-cv-01760

    “… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:20-cv-01760 (Filed September 8, 2020;”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Hotel would pay us $250,000 in installment payments over 24 months. Best Western International, Inc. v. Twin City Lodging, LLC, et al., Arizona District Court Case No. 18-cv-03374-SPL (Filed October 19, 2018).”

  • In the Matter of Best Western International, Inc. Virginia Corporation Commission’s Division of Securities and Retail Franchising

    settled

    Government or regulatory action · filed 2020-02-24 · Virginia State Corporation Commission, Division of Securities and Retail Franchising · SEC-2019-00060

    “… Case No. SEC-2019-00060 (Effective February 24, 2020).”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “pay to the Treasurer of Virginia $12,000 in monetary penalties; (ii) pay to the Treasurer of Virginia $1,000 to defray the costs of investigation; and (iii) not violate Virginia Franchise Law in the future.”

  • In the Matter of Best Western International, Inc. Securities Division of Department of Financial Institutions of Washington

    concluded

    Government or regulatory action · filed 2019-02-07 · Washington Department of Financial Institutions, Securities Division · S-18-2510-19-CO01

    “… Order No. S-18-2510-19-CO01 (Effective February 7, 2019).”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  • In the Matter of Best Western International, Inc., Department of Business Oversight of the State of California

    concluded

    Government or regulatory action · filed 2019-04-09 · California Department of Business Oversight · FIL ORG ID 102063

    “… FIL ORG ID.: 102063 (Effective April 9, 2019).”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “pay California’s Department of Business Oversight $500,000 in administrative penalties; and (iii) pay California’s Department of Business Oversight $10,000 in investigative costs.”

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. Twin City Lodging, LLC, et al.

    settled

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2018-10-19 · Arizona District Court · 18-cv-03374-SPL

    “… Arizona District Court Case No. 18-cv-03374-SPL (Filed October 19, 2018).”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Mankato Former Hotel would pay us $66,250. Best Western International, Inc. v. Oakland Park, Inc., et al., Arizona State Court (Maricopa County) Case No. CV 2015-000279 (Filed December 12, 2016, Appellate Ruling December 6, 2018).”

  • In the Matter of Best Western International, Inc. Securities Division of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland

    concluded

    Government or regulatory action · filed 2018-08-24 · Securities Division of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland · 2018-0237

    “… Case No. 2018-0237 (Effective August 24, 2018).”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “we voluntarily entered into a Consent Order with the Maryland Securities Commissioner (the “Securities Commissioner”) dated August 24, 2018.”

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. American Hospitality Solution, LLC and Deborah Speziale

    settled

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2016-10-06 · Arizona District Court · 2:16-cv-03405

    “… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:16-cv-03405 (Filed October 6, 2016).”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Crossroads Former Hotel would pay us $35,000. Quist v. Best Western International, Inc., Supreme Court of North Dakota, Civ.”

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. Oakland Park, Inc., et al.

    settled

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2016-12-12 · Arizona State Court (Maricopa County) · CV 2015-000279

    “… Arizona State Court (Maricopa County) Case No. CV 2015-000279 (Filed December 12, 2016, Appellate Ruling December 6, 2018).”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Fort Lauderdale Former Hotel would pay us $225,000. Bright LLC v. Best Western International, Inc., Arizona District Court Case No. 17-cv-00463- PHX-ROS (Filed July 8, 2016).” (page 15)

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. Upstate Host, LLC and Tarrunumn Murad

    settled

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2016-03-31 · Arizona District Court · 2:16-cv-00885 (PGR)

    “… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:16-cv-00885 (PGR) (Filed March 31, 2016).”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Syracuse Former Hotel would pay us $78,000 in 24 equal monthly payments of $3,250. Best Western International, Inc. v. American Hospitality Solution, LLC and Deborah Speziale, Arizona District Court Case No. 2:16-cv-03405 (Filed October 6, 2016).”

  • Bright LLC v. Best Western International, Inc.

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2016-07-08 · Arizona District Court · 17-cv-00463-PHX-ROS

    “… Arizona District Court Case No. 17-cv-00463- PHX-ROS (Filed July 8, 2016).”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Former Applicant would pay us $114,000. State Bank of Texas, SBT I-10 Service Rd., Ft. Worth Hotel South, LLC v. Best Western International, Inc., Arizona State Court (Maricopa County) Case No. CV 2015-008670 (Filed November 20, 2015).”

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. SDV Hospitality and Resources Corporation and Deepak Kant Vyas

    settled

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2015-10-27 · Arizona District Court · 2:15-cv-02159

    “… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:15-cv-02159 (Filed October 27, 2015).”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “On July 26, 2017, the parties settled the case with mutual releases of all claims per a confidential settlement agreement, the disclosure of which is only allowed if required by applicable law or court order.” (page 16)

  • State Bank of Texas, SBT I-10 Service Rd., Ft. Worth Hotel South, LLC v. Best Western International, Inc.

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2015-11-20 · Arizona State Court (Maricopa County) · CV 2015-008670

    “… Arizona State Court (Maricopa County) Case No. CV 2015-008670 (Filed November 20, 2015).”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Fort Worth Former Hotel would pay us $25,000. Best Western International, Inc. v. SDV Hospitality and Resources Corporation and Deepak Kant Vyas, Arizona District Court Case No. 2:15-cv-02159 (Filed October 27, 2015).”

  • Commissioner of Corporations v. Best Western International, Inc.

    judgment

    Government or regulatory action · filed 1988-07-29 · Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles · 0693928

    “… Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 0693928 (Filed July 29, 1988).”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “we consented to the entry of a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction which ordered that: we (i) be permanently enjoined from offering to selling or otherwise in any way dealing or participating in the offer or sale of any franchise which is not exempt from the registration requirements under the”

  • Quist v. Best Western International, Inc.

    concluded

    Government or regulatory action · filed 1984-07-18 · Supreme Court of North Dakota · Civ. Case No. 10571

    “… Supreme Court of North Dakota, Civ. Case No. 10571 (Filed July 18, 1984). On March 3, 1983, the North Dakota Securities Commissioner held that (i) the agreements between us and our Members were “franchises” as defined in the North Dakota Franchise Investment Law (“FIL”);”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “On July 19, 1984, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding that: (i) the FIL contained no exception for cooperative marketing agreements;” (page 17)

Status not stated in the filing (8)

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. Anderson Hospitality, LLC Ankit Panchal, and Nikita Panchal

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-08-22 · Arizona District Court · 2:25-cv-03077-MTM

    “… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:25-cv-03077-MTM (Filed August 22, 2025).”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. GVR Holding LTD, Gurkamal Kullar, and Jane Doe Kullar

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-08-22 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV2025-030257

    “… Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County Case No. CV2025-030257 (Filed August 22, 2025).”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. Hari Krupa, LLC, Pranav Halvawala, and Jane Doe Halvawala

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-11-10 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV2025-061393

    “… Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County Case No. CV2025-061393 (Filed November 10, 2025).”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. Hriday Hospitality, LLC, Jigar Desai, and Tanvi Desai

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-11-12 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV2025-062934

    “… Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County Case No. CV2025-062934 (Filed November 12, 2025).”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. Satguru Nanak Ji, LLC, Taranjit Singh, and Jane Doe Singh

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-08-25 · Arizona District Court · 2:25-CV-03086-DGC

    “… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:25-CV-03086-DGC (Filed August 25, 2025).”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. Supreme International Hotels, Inc., Shakeel Syed, and Sama Amrin

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-02-12 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV2025-005555

    “… Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County Case No. CV2025-005555 (Filed February 12, 2025).”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. VD Patel Family Company, LLC, Ashik Patel, and Trisha Patel

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-04-02 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV2025-011764

    “… Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County Case No. CV2025-011764 (Filed April 2, 2025).”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  • Best Western International, Inc. v. VED Enterprises Inc. Aksha Amin, and Jane Doe Amin

    Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-08-22 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV2025-030228

    “… Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County, Case No. CV2025-030228 (Filed August 22, 2025).”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

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

  • Active litigation involving breach of contract, unpaid fees, and wrongful termination suggests systemic franchisor-franchisee relationship 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?
Back to the BW Premier Collection and BW Signature Collection verdictRisk analysis on the brand pageFranchisee contacts for due-diligence calls