FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

CARRE D’ARTISTES litigation history

What CARRE D’ARTISTES 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: 3; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $20K; 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

Three concluded lawsuits involving Artier LLC (Florida franchisee) and Societe Art Fix Gallery (Bahrain/Qatar/UAE franchisee), all settled January 2018 for $112,000 plus $10,000 forgiven. California CDFPI consent order (April 2022) for including non-peer-reviewed audited financials; $20,000 penalty paid.

Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor and its predecessor

Concluded (3)

Consent Order - California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (Carré d'artistes Great America LLC)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2022-04-08 · California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
“Consent Order with the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation of the State of California. From when Franchisor first started offering franchises in the U.S. until 2021, Franchisor hired KVB Partners (“KVB”) and Mr. Jean-Louis Vorburger (“Vorburger”) to prepare audited financial statements to be included in Franchisor’s franchise disclosure document (“FDD”).”Page 9 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Franchisor agreed to pay a $20,000 penalty and to desist and refrain from using the financial statements prepared by KVB and Vorburger.”
Artier LLC, Eduardo Castaneda, Martha Blanco v. Carré d’artistes SAS, Carré d’artistes USA Corp., et al.; Carré d’artistes SAS v. Artier LLC, Eduardo Castaneda, Martha Blanco
settled
Brought by a franchisee · Carré d’artistes SAS (our ultimate parent and predecessor) and Carré d’artistes USA Corp. · filed 2017-04-12 · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida; Tribunal de commerce, Aix-en-Provence, France · 17-80636-CV-Middlebrooks; Cor 6617 MD 95743
“Artier LLC, Eduardo Castaneda, Martha Blanco v. Carré d’artistes SAS, Carré d’artistes USA Corp., Stephanie Tosi, Marina Fauvey, Patrice Martineau and Charlotte Troisgros in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 17-80636-CV-Middlebrooks, Filed May 22, 2017.”Page 8 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Carré d’artistes SAS v. Societe Art Fix Gallery and Sophira, Ltd.
settled
Brought by the franchisor · Carré d’artistes SAS (our ultimate parent and predecessor) · filed 2017-05-18 · Tribunal de commerce, Aix-en-Provence, France · 2017 00 7329
“… in the Tribunal de commerce, Aix-en-Provence, no. 2017 00 7329, filed May 18, 2017 In April 2017 Carré d’artistes France filed an action in Aix-en-Provence, France against its franchisee in”Page 8 of the 2025 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

Three concluded breach of contract litigations (2018) plus California DFPI consent order (2022) indicate persistent franchisor compliance and disclosure issues

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 CARRE D’ARTISTES verdict Risk analysis on the brand page