FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Church’s Texas Chicken litigation history

What Church’s Texas Chicken 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: 8; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $175K; As stated in Item 3

Bankruptcy (Item 4): Disclosed; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2025; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

1 concluded enforcement case (Cajun v. Carolina Café 2024); 2 UK concluded cases (Chaudhry/Nawaz 2014, settled); 1 concluded GA/MS case (Thomas & Irons 2018-2019); 1 concluded CA case (Pacific Premier Bank / Royal California 2025); 2 pending cases (Royal Texas TX State/Federal Actions and Second Texas Federal Action involving Triangle)

Item 3 (litigation) · 8 matters disclosed · 3 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (2)

Cajun Global, LLC, Cajun Operating Company, Cajun Realty, LLC, and Cajun Funding Corp. v. Royal Texas, LLC
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2022-03-23 · Harris County, Texas District Court · 2022-17350
“… Case No. 2022-17350 (Harris County, Texas District Court) (the “Texas State Action”). On March 21, 2022, we terminated the franchise agreements of Royal Texas, LLC (“Royal Texas”), a franchisee that operated 52 franchised restaurants in Houston, Texas”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Triangle removed the action to Texas federal court (the “Texas Federal Action”). On removal, the Texas State Action was stayed. Several months after removal, the parties stipulated to stay the Texas Federal Action pending resolution of the Georgia Action. The Texas Federal Action currently remains stayed.”
Royal Texas, LLC v. Cajun Global, LLC, Cajun Operating, LLC and High Bluff Capital Partners, LLC
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2022-03-31 · Fulton County, Georgia Superior Court · 2022CV362893
“… ¸ Case No. 2022CV362893 (Fulton County, Georgia Superior Court) (the “Georgia Action”). On March 31, 2022, Royal Texas filed an action against us, our affiliate Cajun Operating, LLC, and our private equity ownership, High Bluff Capital Partners, LLC in Georgia”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Non-expert discovery has closed. Both parties have designated experts and provided expert reports. This matter remains pending.”

Concluded (3)

Cajun Global, LLC v. Carolina Café Services, Inc.
judgment
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2024-03-19 · Fulton County, Georgia Superior Court · 24CV003456
“… Case No. 24CV003456 (Fulton County, Georgia Superior Court). We filed suit against defendant on March 19, 2024. Defendant is a former Church’s Chicken franchisee, which ceased operating its franchised restaurant before the end of the franchise agreement term. We brought claims for breach of the franchise agreement,”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On March 6, 2025, by agreement of the parties, the Court entered a Consent Final Judgment finding in favor of us on each of our claims and awarding us damages of $136,000.00, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, thereby terminating the litigation.”
Pacific Premier Bank vs. Royal Investment Holdings, LLC
settled
filed 2024-10-25 · Los Angeles County, California Superior Court · 23LBCV01292
“On October 25, 2024, Royal Investment Holdings, LLC, Royal California One, LLC, and David Davoudpour (the “Royal California Parties”) filed a third-party complaint against Cajun”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “After extensive negotiations, the parties reached a universal settlement and resolution was reached. On March 17, 2025, the entire California Action was dismissed. This litigation has ended.”
Cajun Global LLC, d/b/a Church’s Chicken, et al. v. Thomas & Irons, LLC, et al.
settled
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2018-02-02 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division · 1:18-cv-00538-RWS
“… Case No. 1:18-cv-00538-RWS (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division) (the “Georgia Lawsuit”). We filed the Georgia Lawsuit on February 2, 2018 against our franchisees and their affiliates for injunctive relief, liquidated damages,”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Before any further litigation transpired, we settled the dispute with all defendants under terms whereby we purchased the operating restaurant from Thomas & Irons, LLC for $175,000, and the parties agreed to mutually release and dismiss all claims. The Mississippi Lawsuit was dismissed on July 31, 2018, and the Georgia Lawsuit was dismissed on April 11, 2019.”
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it
- Thomas & Irons, LLC, et al. v. Cajun Global, LLC, et al.
  settled
  Brought by a franchisee · names the franchisor · filed 2018-02-12 · Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, State of Mississippi (removed to the United States District Court for Southern District of Mississippi, 3:18-cv-1070-DPJ-FKB) · G-2018-193
  “… in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, State of Mississippi, civil action number G-2018-193”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
  Outcome: “The Mississippi Lawsuit was dismissed on July 31, 2018, and the Georgia Lawsuit was dismissed on April 11, 2019.”
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (1)

Store Master Funding XXIX, LLC v. Triangle Capital Properties, LLC and Royal Texas, LLC
pending
Cajun Operating Company and Cajun Houston Holdings, LLC (the 'Cajun Texas Parties', third-party defendants) · filed 2024-07-31 · United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division · 4:23-cv-01194
“… Case No. 4:23-cv- 01194 (United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division) On July 31, 2024, Triangle filed a third- party complaint against our affiliates, Cajun Operating Company and Cajun Houston Holdings, LLC”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Cajun Texas Parties have filed a motion to dismiss all claims. In April 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that all claims against the Cajun Texas Parties be transferred to the stayed Texas Federal Action. This recommendation remains pending.”

Concluded (2)

Ali Nawaz, Rob Nawaz and Sukhraj Singh Klair & Ors v Cajun Operating Company
dismissed
Brought by a franchisee · Cajun Operating Company (the franchisor's affiliate and franchise manager) · filed 2014-03-11 · High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Leeds District Registry · A40LS212
“… Claim Number: A40LS212, (High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Leeds District Registry, March 11, 2014)”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Cajun Operating and the claimants participated in a non-binding mediation procedure on November 11, 2015 during which the claimants dismissed the case with prejudice in consideration for a payment by Cajun Operating in the amount of £350,000 and no admission of liability on the part of Cajun Operating.”
Saheer Ur Rehman Chaudhry & Ors v. Cajun Operating Company
dismissed
Brought by a franchisee · Cajun Operating Company (the franchisor's affiliate and franchise manager) · filed 2014-03-11 · High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Leeds District Registry · A40LS211
“… Claim Number: A40LS211 (High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Leeds District Registry, March 11, 2014)”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Cajun Operating and the claimants participated in a non-binding mediation procedure on November 11, 2015 during which the claimants dismissed the case with prejudice in consideration for a payment by Cajun Operating in the amount of £350,000 and no admission of liability on the part of Cajun Operating.”

One proceeding above is indented under the matter it belongs 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 8 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.

Disclosed in the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 4: bankruptcy

In re QCE Finance LLC, et al., Case No. 14-10543-LSS (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware). On March 14, 2014, QFA Royalties LLC filed a “Debtor’s Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization” (the “Plan”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Multiple active litigations including franchisor-initiated enforcement cases (Carolina Café Services, Royal Texas LLC) and fraud settlements signal adversarial franchisor-franchisee relationships

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 Church’s Texas Chicken verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls