Skip to main content
FranchiseVerdict
Friendly’s logo
BAbove average58/100FDD 2025

Friendly’s: Litigation & Risk

Full-Service Restaurants · FDD Items 3, 4 & 5

Back to overview

Elevated Risk

2 cases disclosed in FDD Items 3 and 4. Bankruptcy disclosed in Item 4.

Source: FDD Items 3–5

FDD Items 3 & 4

Litigation Metrics

Cases disclosed
2
Total from FDD Items 3 and 4
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
Disclosed
Franchisor or officer bankruptcy
Verdict score
58 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite · higher is better
Rating
B
A / B / C / D / F verdict grade

7(a) FOIA data · FY2020–present

SBA Loan Performance

Aggregated from public SBA 7(a) loan disclosures. Charge-off rate is the share of loans that were charged off or settled for less than the full balance.

Total 7(a) loans
37
Government-backed loans issued
Charge-off rate
6.5%
vs 16% franchise average
5-yr charge-off rate
N/A
Defaults
2 loans
Loans charged off or defaulted
Total loan volume
$25.5M
Avg loan size
$689K
Participating lenders
16

FDD Items 5, 6 & 17: What You Give Up

Contract Risk Indicators

Mandatory arbitration
Not required
You retain the right to sue in court
Jury trial waiver
Not waived
Non-compete
2 yrs
Post-termination restriction on similar businesses
Franchisor can compete
Yes
Franchisor can open competing locations in or near your territory
Right of first refusal
Yes
Franchisor can match any purchase offer when you try to sell
Governing law
TX
State whose law governs disputes. Relevant if you're not based there

Extracted from FDD Item 3

Litigation Detail

1. Franchisor vs. J&B Restaurant Partners et al (Index No. 650080/2023): Settled July 2023 after franchise terminations and declaratory judgment action regarding lease assignments and collateral. 2. SEC v. Sherif Mityas (12-cv-1281): CEO consented to Final Judgment in 2012 for securities violation (Rule 10b-5).

What drove the 58/100 verdict

Risk Score Breakdown

  1. 01MEDSignificant unit contraction: 95 units represents declining system with only 9.3% YoY growth, suggesting maturity or decline phase
  2. 02MINORNo financial disclosure: Franchisor does not disclose Item 19 (average unit volumes or net income), making ROI analysis impossible
  3. 03MEDHigh initial investment ($1.1M–$2.7M) paired with undisclosed profitability creates asymmetric risk
  4. 04HIGHLitigation history including asset/lease disputes with franchisees and SEC judgment against CEO raises governance concerns
  5. 05HIGHGoing concern status is False, indicating potential balance sheet or operational sustainability issues
  6. 06MINOR6% royalty on net sales with high capex requirements typical of casual dining creates margin pressure in low-AUV environments

Severity inferred from FDD text. Not a regulatory or legal classification

Litigation data from FDD Items 3, 4, and 5. SBA data from public 7(a) FOIA records (FY2020–present). Not legal advice. Consult a franchise attorney before signing any franchise agreement.