FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Class 101 litigation history

What Class 101 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: 4; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: None stated

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

4 distinct concluded litigation/regulatory matters disclosed across Class 101 and its affiliates: (1) Unleashed Services, LLC v. Pabin (breach of contract/fraud dispute, settled with Unleashed Brands buying back Pabin's ownership interest for $275,000); (2) Snapology Maryland Securities Commissioner consent order for unregistered franchise sales; (3) UATP Management v. Leap of Faith Adventures (breach of contract/trade secrets dispute settled for $5,000,000 paid to LOFA); (4) California DFPI consent order against Premier Martial Arts for selling unregistered franchises ($10,000 penalty).

Item 3 (litigation) · 4 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (4)

Unleashed Services, LLC vs. Tom Pabin vs. Josh Wall
dismissed
Brought by the franchisor · Unleashed Services, LLC (affiliate); Josh Wall · filed 2023-09-18 · 48th Judicial District of Tarrant County, Texas · 48-346174-23
“… 48th Judicial District of Tarrant County, Texas, bearing Cause No. 48-346174-23.”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Premier Franchising Group, LLC d/b/a Premier Martial Arts International and/or Premier Martial Arts
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Premier Franchising Group, LLC (PMA) · filed 2021-11-18 · California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
“The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Premier Franchising Group, LLC doing business as Premier Martial Arts International (“PMAI”) and/or Premier Martial Arts (“PMA”).”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “pay a $10,000 administrative penalty, (3) file a post-effective amendment updating PMA’s then-current registration to include the consent order, and (4) disclose the existence of each and every California studio in Item 20 and in the exhibit list of current and former franchisees in any PMA disclosure document filed with the Commissioner moving forward.”
UATP Management, LLC v. Leap of Faith Adventures, LLC
settled
Brought by the franchisor · UATP Management, LLC · filed 2018-07-09 · District Court of Tarrant County, Texas · 017-300796-18
“… (District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 017-300796-18).”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
In the Matter of Snapology Community Programs, L.P. and its successor Snapology, LLC
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Snapology, LLC · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2015-0429
“… Administrative Proceeding Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2015-0429.”Page 12 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

Net Income not disclosed in FDD Item 19—prevents prospective franchisees from validating profitability claims; combined with litigation, suggests franchisor unwilling or unable to substantiate earnings
Unit growth of 23.2% YoY appears strong but context missing—unclear if growth masks franchisee churn, unit consolidation, or acquisition of competitor locations; litigation suggests potential attrition

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 Class 101 verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls