Carvel litigation history

The franchisor and its predecessor

Pending (2)

• Carvel Franchisor SPV, LLC v. Oluf Inc. and Stephen Oluf Winick

  pending

  Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-04-03 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · 1:25-cv-01776-ELR

  “… (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Case No. 1:25-cv-01776-ELR, filed April 3, 2025). On April 3, 2025, we filed a lawsuit against our former franchisee Oluf Incorporated (“Oluf”) and its owner, Stephen Oluf Winick (“Winick”) after they continued to operate a Shoppe without authorization after we”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

• Oluf Inc. v. Carvel Corporation

  pending

  Brought by a franchisee · Carvel Corporation (now Carvel LLC, 'our predecessor' per Item 1) · filed 2025-04-01 · Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County · 25STCP01211

  “… (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Case No. 25STCP01211, filed April 1, 2025). Our former franchisee, Oluf, filed a “Petition for Order Compelling Arbitration and Appointing Neutral Arbitrator” against Carvel Corporation. The petition seeks to compel arbitration in Los Angeles concerning disputes under the franchise agreement, including alleged”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (4)

• New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.

  concluded

  Government or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (DBI) · filed 2019-09-26 · N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County · 451787/2019

  “… (N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County, Case No. 451787/2019, filed September 26, 2019). In this matter, the N.Y. Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a lawsuit against our affiliate, DBI, related to credential-stuffing cyberattacks during 2015 and 2018. The NYAG alleged that the cyber attackers used individuals’ credentials obtained from elsewhere on the Internet to”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On September 21, 2020, without admitting or denying the NYAG’s allegations, DBI and the NYAG entered into a consent agreement to resolve the State’s complaint. Under consent order, DBI agreed to pay $650,000 in penalties and costs, issue certain notices and other types of communications to New York customers, and maintain a comprehensive information security”

• The People of the State of California v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc.

  settled

  Government or regulatory action · Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (ARG) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09397

  “… (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09397, filed March 19, 2019). On March 11, 2019, our affiliate, Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (“ARG”), entered into a settlement agreement with the states of California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “Under the settlement agreement, ARG paid no money but agreed (a) to remove the disputed provision from its franchise agreements (which it had already done);”

• The People of the State of California v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.

  settled

  Government or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (DBI) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09597

  “… (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09597, filed on March 19, 2019.) On March 14, 2019, our affiliate, Dunkin Brands, Inc. (“DBI”), entered into a settlement agreement with the Attorneys General of 13 states and jurisdictions concerning the inclusion of “no-poaching” provisions in”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The Attorney General of the State of California filed the above-reference lawsuit in order to place the settlement agreement in the public record, and the action was closed after the court approved the parties’ stipulation of judgment.”

• In the Matter of Jimmy John’s Franchisor SPV LLC

  concluded

  Government or regulatory action · Jimmy John’s Franchisor SPV LLC · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2025-0122

  “… (Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2025-0122). On March 28, 2022, Jimmy John’s filed a Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) with the Maryland Securities Division as part of a notice of exemption from franchise registration. In this filing, Jimmy John’s listed the former franchisees but omitted the required contact information for the”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “Under the terms of the Consent Order, Jimmy John’s agreed to pay a $30,000 civil monetary penalty, to permanently cease and desist from the offer or sale of franchises in violation of the Maryland Franchise Law, and to disclose the existence of the Consent Order in future franchise disclosure documents.” (page 29)