FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Da Vi Nails / Em Lash Studio litigation history

What Da Vi Nails / Em Lash Studio 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: 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: 2025; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

Virginia 2008 settlement (SEC-2008-00066) for unregistered franchise sales; Virginia 2018 settlement (SEC-2017-0065) for selling one franchise without current FDD; California 2009/2012 Desist and Refrain Order for franchise law violations; California 2018 Consent Decree for unregistered franchise sales. All involve regulatory/state enforcement actions.

Item 3 (litigation) · 4 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor and its predecessor

Concluded (4)

Matter with no printed caption
settled
Government or regulatory action · filed 2018-04-20 · Virginia State Corporation Commission, Division of Securities and Retail Franchising · SEC-2017-0065
“After an investigation, on April 20, 2018, the Division entered a new Settlement Order SEC-2017-0065 (the “New Order”) alleging that in April, 2017, Da Vi Nails, during a time that its registration in Virginia had lapsed, violated the Act by offering and selling one franchise in Virginia without providing the purchaser with a current Franchise Disclosure Document.”Page 9 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Matter with no printed caption
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2018-10-26 · California Division of Business Oversight
“On October 26, 2018, Da Vi Nails entered into a Consent Decree with the California Division of Business Oversight wherein Da Vi Nails and its managers were ordered to desist and refrain from the offer and sale of unregistered franchises and paid a fine of $3,000.”Page 9 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
In the matter of DaVi Nails International, LLC, David Truong and Vi Cao
concluded
Government or regulatory action · DaVi Nails International, LLC (Da-Vi International), David Truong and Vi Cao · filed 2009-02-25 · California Corporations Commissioner
“… On February 25, 2009, the California Corporations Commissioner issued a Desist and Refrain Order against Da-Vi International, Mr. Truong and Ms. Cao alleging they had violated the California Franchise Investment Law in selling Licenses and Subleases in California.”Page 9 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Da Vi Nails International, LLC and David Truong
settled
Government or regulatory action · Da Vi Nails International, LLC (Da-Vi International, whose assets and liabilities we acquired) and David Truong · filed 2008-07-21 · Virginia State Corporation Commission · SEC-2008-00066
“… Case No. SEC-2008-00066.”Page 9 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

Significant regulatory litigation in major markets (Virginia, California) for franchise law violations including unregistered offerings and failure to provide disclosure documents

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 Da Vi Nails / Em Lash Studio verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls