Skip to main content
FranchiseVerdict
Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop logo

Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026

Quick-Service RestaurantsAZFranchising since 2015
CAverageAverage39/100Editorial grade from public filings; not investment advice.
Investment
$282K – $502K
Disclosed sales
not disclosed
SBA charge-off
Not SBA-matched

Investment, fees, disclosed sales, units, SBA record and risk, as one PDF. Free; no spam; one click to unsubscribe.

FV-01052Data QualityStandard71%Pre-openingFDD 2024 · 2yr old
Manager-run OKNo: No territory protection

Data from FDD filing

Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology

This data is from a 2024 FDD. Current terms may differ. Always verify with the franchisor's latest disclosure document.

Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop is a fast-casual franchise serving sushi rolls and customizable poke bowls. Franchisees run the restaurants, managing fresh-fish prep, staffing, and counter service.

FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026

A Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop franchise requires a total initial investment of $282K – $502K, including a $30K franchise fee and an ongoing 6.0% royalty[2]. This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. FranchiseVerdict grade: C (Average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →

Sources, dates and evidence

FDD issued: · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: high - issued more than two years ago

Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✗ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored5 of 5 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.

Overview

Investment
$282K – $502K
44th pct Service Resta…
Avg gross sales
N/A
0 outlets
Royalty
6.0%
48th pct Service Resta…
Units
0
0th pct Service Resta…
SBA charge-off
N/A

Quick verdict · Quick-Service Restaurants · color = vs category peers

Total Investment
$282K – $502K
Median $486K
below median ↓, better than category
Franchise Fee
$30K – $30K
Median $35K
below median ↓, better than category
Liquid Capital Req'd
$15K – $25K
Median $33K
below median ↓, better than category
Avg Revenue
Not disclosed
Franchisor makes none
Royalty Rate
6.0%
Median 5.5%
near median
Ongoing Fees
9.0% of rev
Median 7.5%
above median ↑, worse than category
SBA Charge-Off Rate
Not SBA-matched
Not matched to SBA 7(a) loans
System Size
0 units
Median 18 units
below median ↓, worse than category
Territory
None
The franchisor can open or license outlets nearby
Owner-Operator
Optional
Can hire a manager
Litigation
26 cases
Review carefully

Green = favorable by >10% vs Quick-Service Restaurants median · No shading = within ±10% · Red = unfavorable by >10% · Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a)

Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Not financial advice. Methodology

Bottom line

  • COSTTotal investment $282K – $502K including a $30K franchise fee, 6.0% ongoing royalty.
  • RETURNSThis franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.
  • RISKVerdict C (Average), verdict score 39/100 (higher is better).
  • GROWTHFlat: no net change in franchised outlets in the latest year (0 opened, 0 closed); 3 signed but not yet open (Item 20).
  • LEGAL26 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of the 15 listed on this page, 3 name the franchisor itself, 11 its parent, affiliates or predecessor, 1 an officer personally. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.

Item 1 · who you're contracting with

The Franchisor

Corporate structure & franchisor financials
Legal entity
MTY Franchising USA, Inc.
Parent company
MTY Franchising Inc. (MTY Canada)
FDD Item 1, page 7 of the 2024 FDD
Ultimate parent
MTY Food Group, Inc.
FDD Item 1, page 7 of the 2024 FDD
Predecessor
The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc.
Prior franchisor entity
CEO title
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Eric Lefebvre
Incorporated in
TN
HQ
9311 E. Via de Ventura, Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Auditor
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
Audited financials
Franchisor revenue
$580.3M
vs $263.7M prior year
Management churn noted
Frequent turnover
Item 2 disclosed frequent executive changes

Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 7

26 other brands on this site name MTY Food Group, Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.

Portfolio: MTY Food Group

Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2024 FDD). Spelling variants of the same group may be listed apart; a brand is never grouped with an owner its filing does not name.

Overview

About

CEO
Eric Lefebvre
Headquarters
AZ
Founded
2001
FDD year
2024
States available
0

Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?

Entry cost runs 19% below the typical quick-service restaurants franchise.

Total investment (Item 7)$282K – $502KCited, not corroborated — printed on page 44 of the 2024 FDD (Item 7). Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
Franchise fee$30,000Cited, not corroborated — printed on page 34 of the 2024 FDD (Item 5). Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
Royalty6.0%Cited, not corroborated — printed on page 34 of the 2024 FDD (Item 6). Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
Ad fund3.0%Cited, not corroborated — printed on page 35 of the 2024 FDD (Item 6). Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
Working capital$15K – $25K

Source: FDD 2024 · Items 5–7

Full Item 7 breakdown19 line items

Initial investment breakdown

Item 7 initial investment line items
Line itemLowHigh
Initial Franchise Fee - (a) Single Unit Franchisees$30K$30K
Electricity, Water, Gas, Telephone and Landlord's Deposits$2K$10K
Store Design Fees and Plans$11K$18K
Permits$1K$3K
Landlord Capital Contribution / Construction Chargeback——
Store Construction, Leaseholds and Fixtures$79K$199K
Equipment Package$100K$139K
Furniture$8K$21K
Signs$11K$21K
Menu Box——
Opening Uniform Package$700$1K
Small Wares$8K$10K
Cleaning Supplies$250$500
Opening Promotion and Advertising$2K$5K
Grand Opening Marketing$10K$10K
Training Attendance$500$3K
Insurance$850$2K
POS System$3K$5K
Additional Funds - First 3 months$15K$25K
Total initial investment$282K$502K

Line items extracted from FDD Item 7. Ranges reflect the franchisor's stated low and high per line. Total is the sum of line-item lows / highs — actual costs may fall outside this range depending on market and build-out scope.

Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate

The Vitals

Total investment
$282K – $502K
Middle of category vs category
Liquid capital req'd
$15K – $25K
Top 40% of category vs category
Franchise fee
$30K – $30K
Top 40% of category vs category
Royalty
6.0%
typical 6–8%
Ad fund
3.0%
typical 3–5%
Total fee load
9.0%
vs 9–13% typical

Ongoing fees · Item 6

Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop: Item 6 recurring fees
FeeAmount
Royalty6.0% of gross sales
Marketing / ad fund3.0% of gross sales
Technology fee$200
Transfer fee$15K
Renewal fee$15K
Inventory (initial)$8K – $10K
Total fee load9.0% of rev
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
Blue values = direct from FDD (Item 7 investment, Item 19 revenue, Item 6 fees)Not set = no filing supplies it and we will not substitute one. Enter your own

Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD - a voluntary item under the FTC Franchise Rule - so no unit revenue figures are disclosed. The return models need a revenue figure to start from, and the operating costs that turn gross sales into a profit are in no FDD. Enter your own and the calculator runs on your assumptions — nothing here is modelled until you do.

Returns model · single-unit ROIC

What would one Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop unit return on the cash you put in?

From FDDNot set — you supply itYou overrode an FDD value
Revenue · per unit, per yearnot set
Item 19 not disclosed. Enter your own revenue assumption
Franchisor take · royalty + ad fundFDD
typ 6–8%
typ 3–5%
Operating costs · not in any FDDnot set

Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.

Total invested capital · what you put in to openFDD
FDD Item 7: $282K–$502K (midpoint used)
FDD reports $15K–$25K

Unlevered ROIC · per unit

Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.

—

An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for annual revenue, COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.


Store EBITDA · annual
—
EBITDA margin
—
Total invested
$412K
Payback
—
Single-unit only. A multi-unit portfolio gives up roughly 5–15% of this to shared services (corporate G&A) before reaching the ~10-unit break-even point.

These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.

Item 19 · Source: 2024 FDD

Financial Performance

No financial performance representation

This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.

Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.

Showing the headline figures — all 149 extracted fields are in the Full FDD Report · $19 →

Operator outlook

What the numbers say

Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.

Fee burden

Total ongoing fee load of 9.0% — above the Quick-Service Restaurants median of 7.5%.

Disclosure

This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.

Source: FDD Item 19 financial performance representations and publicly filed FDD data. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Verify all figures with the franchisor and current franchisees before making any investment decision.

vs Quick-Service Restaurants medians

How Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop Compares

Metric
Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop
Category median
vs median
Investment
$392K
$486Kmiddle half $342K–$748K · n=780
Below median, better than category
Revenue
N/A
$975Kmiddle half $664K–$1.4M · n=284
N/A
Unit Count
0
18middle half 5–79 · n=755
Below median, worse than category

Category median of published Quick-Service Restaurants brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.

Is the system healthy?

Total units0Verified — printed on page 78 of the 2024 FDD (Item 20), and the table's own arithmetic closes on it one way.

Source: FDD 2024 · Item 20

Unit growth

Item 20 · unit dynamics

The Growth Chart

Total units
0
Opened
0
Last reporting year
Closed
0
Terminated
0
Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
Non-renewed
0
Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
Company-owned
0
Corporate units in the system

Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers

Terminated
0
Not renewed
0
Transferred
0
Reacquired
0
Franchisor bought back
Signed, not yet open
3
Item 20 Table 5
Projected new
0
Franchisor's next-year forecast
2021
0
Franchised units
2022
0±0
Franchised units
2023
0±0
Franchised units

Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.

SBA loan performance

Government records

SBA Loan Data

Aggregated from SBA 7(a) and 504 loan disclosures, public data unique to FranchiseVerdict.

No SBA loan data available for this brand.

What could kill this investment?

SBA charge-offNot SBA-matched
Verdict score39/100 (higher is better)
Litigation26 cases
Auditor going-concern doubtNo (favorable vs category)

Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21

Risk analysis

FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21

Risk & Legal

CAverage39Verdict score 39/100
Low confidence±18 pts
2157

Litigation (Item 3)

Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).

Concluded litigation involving predecessor The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, affiliates Kahala Franchising, Cold Stone Creamery, SFF/SweetFrog Enterprises, Fresh Enterprises/BF Acquisition (Baja Fresh), Famous Dave's of America, VI BrandCo, Wetzel's Pretzels, Papa Murphy's International, and state administrative actions. Active lawsuit: Kahala Franchising v. Hunter Hammond Enterprises (Georgia, 2023).

Largest disclosed settlement: $300,000

Bankruptcy (Item 4)

None disclosed

Audited financials (Item 21)

Yes · PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)

Franchisor revenue (Item 21)

Yr 1: $580.3MYr 2: $263.7MNon-royalty: $9.2M

Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)

Audited consolidated financial statements of MTY Franchising USA, Inc. (franchisor, parent of Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop), in thousands USD, FY ended Nov 30, 2023. Total revenue $580,280K (Franchising $242,343K + Corporate $337,937K). 'Other' revenue $9,215K. Statements are entity/parent-level, not brand-specific; Ginger Sushi had 0 outlets as of Nov 30, 2023.

ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results — the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.

Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16

  • Franchisor sells you products: Yes
  • Kickbacks from required suppliers: Yes
  • Must buy proprietary products: Yes
  • Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
  • Can negotiate own supplier terms: No

Score breakdown · what drove the 39 / 100 verdict

  1. 01MINORZero operating franchise units with unknown growth trajectory indicates no proven system or market validation
  2. 02HIGHMultiple concluded litigations and arbitrations involving breach of contract, misrepresentation, and franchise law violations demonstrate pattern of legal disputes
  3. 03MINORNo Item 19 financial disclosures (average revenue/net income) prevents assessment of realistic unit economics and franchisee profitability
  4. 04MINORUnprotected territory combined with 6% royalty creates risk of internal competition and cannibalization with no geographic safeguards
  5. 05MEDHigh initial investment range ($281,800–$501,700) with no disclosed franchisee success metrics creates extreme financial risk
  6. 06MINORStartup franchisor with zero proven units represents pre-revenue concept with unvalidated business model in competitive QSR segment

Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification

Showing the headline figures — all 149 extracted fields are in the Full FDD Report · $19 →

Full litigation history from the FDD (Items 3 and 4) →

Litigation case detail26 matters · Item 3

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (2)

  • KOHO, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2015 · Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles · BC572565

    “KOHO, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.; Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles; Case No.: BC572565. On or about February 17, 2015, Koho, Inc. (“Koho”) filed a Complaint against Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. (“Kahala”) alleging: (i) breach of contract; (ii) unjust enrichment; and (iii) declaratory relief.”Page 21 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“On June 19, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby Kahala repurchased Koho’s Area Developer territory for the sum of $75,000 and forgave the remaining damages owed in the amount of $130,000.”

  • Texas Nrgize #1, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.. and Kahala Holdings, L.L.C.

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2014 · 67th Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas; removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; transferred to the United States District Court of the District of Arizona · Civil Action No. 067-272652-14; Case No. 4:14-cv-544-Y; Case No. CV15-0337 PHX DGC

    “Texas Nrgize #1, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.. and Kahala Holdings, L.L.C.; 67th Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas; Civil Action No.: 067-272652-14 subsequently removed to United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; Case No.: 4:14-cv-544-Y.”Page 22 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“In December 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement in which Defendant paid Plaintiff the sum of $35,000. The parties filed a Stipulation to Dismiss With Prejudice on December 18, 2015.” (page 23)

Status not stated in the filing (1)

  • Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. Hunter Hammond Enterprises, L.L.C. and Keith Hammond

    Brought against a franchisee · Superior Court of Harris County, State of Georgia · Civil Action File No.: 23-CV-379

    “Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. Hunter Hammond Enterprises, L.L.C. and Keith Hammond; In The Superior Court Of Harris County State Of Georgia; Civil Action File No.: 23-CV-379.”Page 34 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

Parent, affiliates and predecessor

Concluded (11)

  • Pretzelsdallas1, Inc. v. Wetzel’s Pretzels, LLC

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · Wetzel’s Pretzels, L.L.C. · filed 2019 · American Arbitration Association (Los Angeles, California) · AAA Case No. 01-19-0002-9326

    “On or about September 11, 2019, Pretzelsdallas1, Inc., (“Claimant/Counter Respondent”) a franchisee, filed a demand for arbitration against Wetzel’s Pretzels, LLC (“Respondent/Counter Claimant”) with the American Arbitration Association in which it alleged claims for (i) recission and restitution for intentional misrepresentation, (ii)”Page 29 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“On September 24, 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, in which a mutual release of all claims was agreed to, and Respondent/Counter Claimant paid Claimant/Counter Respondent the sum of $125,000. The matter was subsequently dismissed with prejudice.”

  • Desert Ribs, LLC, Famous Gracie, LLC, Famous Freddie, LLC, Famous George, LLC and Famous Charlie, LLC v. Famous Dave’s of America, Inc.

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. · filed 2016-03-14 · American Arbitration Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota · 01 16 0000 8549

    “On March 14, 2016, the franchisees for the Famous Dave’s® Restaurants in Chandler, Peoria, Mesa and Gilbert, Arizona (“Claimants”) filed a Demand for Arbitration against Famous Dave’s alleging that Famous Dave’s (1) violated the Minnesota Franchise Act (“MFA”),”Page 27 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“Upon the dismissal of the MFA claims, Claimants voluntarily dismissed their remaining claims against Famous Dave’s and entered into a confidential settlement agreement and mutual release (the “Settlement Agreement”), dated August 22, 2016, with Famous Dave’s.”

  • Purav Enterprises, LLC, Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., EP Development, Inc., and Feisal Ramjee

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc. (predecessor in interest to affiliate MTY Franchising USA, Inc.), EP Development, Inc. and Feisal Ramjee · filed 2015-06-22 · Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County · 15-2-15120-7

    “Purav Enterprises, LLC, Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., EP Development, Inc., and Feisal Ramjee; Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County; Case No. 15-2-15120-7.”Page 20 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“The parties entered into a settlement agreement on March 11, 2016, in which Defendants paid Plaintiffs the sum of $20,000. The matter was dismissed on March 16, 2016.” (page 21)

  • DTD Pizza LLC, Brian Watson, Alton Spears, LMP Enterprises LLC, et al. v. Papa Murphy’s International LLC, et al.; consolidated with Mitch and Kristen Brink, Brink Holdings Inc., et al. v. Papa Murphy’s International LLC, et al.

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · Papa Murphy’s International LLC, with Papa Murphy’s Company Stores, Inc., PMI Holdings Inc., Papa Murphy’s Intermediate Inc., Papa Murphy’s Holdings, Inc., Lee Equity Partners LLC and named board memb · filed 2014 · Washington Superior Court, Clark County · 14-2-00904-0 (consolidated); 14-2-01743-3

    “DTD Pizza LLC, Brian Watson, Alton Spears, LMP Enterprises LLC, Pizza Enterprises LLC, Alan and Denise Barnett, DOB Enterprises, Inc., Douglas and Lesia Billing, Rob & Bud's Pizza, Robert J. Dickerson Trust UA, Rob Dickerson, 4LM Enterprises, Inc., Jana and Randell Liles, Ben and Kim Mayfield, SEAMS Holdings LLC, Scott and Erica Shelby, Robert Hoersting, PM Savannah LLC,”Page 29 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“Each of the plaintiff groups have entered into settlements with Papa Murphy’s in which they dismissed all of their claims against defendants with prejudice and the action was dismissed in June 2020.” (page 30)

  • Urquieta Sweet Frog, LLC and Ana Urquieta v. SweetFrog Enterprises, LLC d/b/a SFF, LLC

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C. d/b/a SFF, L.L.C. (affiliate SFF, L.L.C. is its successor in interest) · filed 2014-12-23 · American Arbitration Association · 01 14 0001 8086

    “On December 23, 2014, Urquieta Sweet Frog, LLC and Ana Urquieta, a former sweetFrog franchisee and its owner (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed a Demand for Arbitration against SweetFrog Enterprises, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs alleged: (i) Defendant engaged in fraud; (ii) unfair practices; and (iii) deceptive actions.”Page 25 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“This matter was settled in December of 2015. Under the settlement, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiffs $300,000 and the parties executed mutual releases.”

  • Gregory Fowler, and Doubri Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Cold Stone Creamery, Inc.

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · Cold Stone Creamery, Inc. · filed 2013 · State of Rhode Island Kent Superior Court; removed to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island; transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona · KC-13-0986; CA 1:13-cv-00662-S-PAS; 2:13-02414 PHX PGR

    “Gregory Fowler, and Doubri Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Cold Stone Creamery, Inc.; State of Rhode Island Kent Superior Court; Case No.: KC-13-0986;”Page 23 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“The parties participated in mediation and ultimately entered into a settlement agreement whereby Defendant paid Plaintiffs $250,000.” (page 24)

  • State of Maryland Determination

    concluded

    Government or regulatory action · Triune, LLC (predecessor of BF Acquisition Holdings, L.L.C.) · filed 2012 · State of Maryland (Consent Order with the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland) · Case Number 2012-0073

    “State of Maryland Determination; Case Number 2012-0073. In February 2012, the State of Maryland alleged that during the period January 1, 2009 to November 26, 2009, Triune, LLC (“Triune”): (i) did not retain signed acknowledgements of receipt”Page 33 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“Without admitting or denying the allegations, in September 2012, Triune voluntarily entered into a Consent Order with the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland and agreed to: (i) not violate the Maryland Law in the future; (ii) pay the Office of the Attorney General the sum of $50,000 as a civil penalty;”

  • State of Virginia Determination

    settled

    Government or regulatory action · Triune, LLC (predecessor of BF Acquisition Holdings, L.L.C.) · filed 2012 · Division of Securities and Retail Franchising of the State Corporation Commission (Virginia) · Case Number SEC-2012-00027

    “State of Virginia Determination; Case Number SEC-2012-00027. In February 2012, the Division of Securities and Retail Franchising of the State Corporation Commission (the "Commission") alleged that during 2009 Triune, LLC (“Triune”): (i) offered or sold franchises in Virginia in 2009 that were not registered under the Virginia Retail Franchising Act”Page 33 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“Without admitting or denying the allegations, on November 26, 2012, Triune voluntarily entered into a Settlement Order with the Commission and agreed: (i) to not violate the Virginia Act in the future; (ii) to pay Virginia the sum of $25,000 as a penalty and the sum of $5,000 to defray the Commission’s costs of investigation;”

  • In the Matter of Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc.

    concluded

    Government or regulatory action · Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc. (predecessor franchisor of the Maui Wowi brand; predecessor in interest to Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.) · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · Case No. 2005-0651

    “On November 11, 2005, Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc., the predecessor franchisor of the Maui Wowi brand (“MWF”), entered into a Consent Order with the Securities Commissioner of Maryland (“Commissioner”) resulting from MWF inadvertently entering into four franchise agreements with Maryland residents after its registration in Maryland expired on June 9, 2004”Page 32 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“At this time, MWF is in full compliance with the Consent Order.”

  • In the Matter of Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc. (No. Case No. 2007-0194)

    concluded

    Government or regulatory action · Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc. (MWF) · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · Case No. 2007-0194

    “On September 12, 2007, “MWF” entered into a Consent Order with the Maryland Commissioner resulting from MWF inadvertently entering into two franchise agreements with two Maryland residents (“Second Maryland Franchisees”) without delivering to them the appropriate Offering Circular.”Page 32 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“to reimburse the Maryland Attorney General for its investigation and resolution costs in the total amount of $2,500.”

  • In the Matter of SweetFrog Enterprises, LLC f.k.a. Imagination Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sweet Frog

    concluded

    Government or regulatory action · SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C. f.k.a. Imagination Enterprises, Inc. (predecessor of affiliate SFF, L.L.C.) · Securities Commissioner of Maryland (Administrative Proceeding) · Case No. 2012-0055

    “In the Matter of SweetFrog Enterprises, LLC f.k.a. Imagination Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sweet Frog, Administrative Proceeding Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2012-0055.”Page 31 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“On August 29, 2012, the Commissioner and SFE agreed to enter into a consent order whereby SFE, without admitting or denying any violations of the law, agreed to: (i) immediately and permanently cease from the offer and sale of franchises in violation of the Maryland Franchise Law;”

Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)

Concluded (1)

  • In re: Restaurants Acquisition I, LLC (Giuliano vs. W. Craig Barber et. al.)

    settled

    Third-party plaintiff · W. Craig Barber (Chief Executive Officer) and Robert Langford (Chief Concept Officer - Family Restaurant Division) · filed 2017-12-01 · United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware · Case No. 15-12406 (KG)

    “On December 1, 2017, the Chapter 7 trustee in the Restaurants Acquisition I, LLC (“RAI”) bankruptcy proceeding filed suit in the United States Bankruptcy Court against our Chief Executive Officer W. Craig Barber, our Chief Concept Officer – Family Restaurant Division Robert Langford and companies owned jointly by them alleging avoidance, fraudulent transfer,”Page 29 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“On March 6, 2019, Barber and Langford each settled with the Chapter 7 trustee by each agreeing to pay to the trustee and estate separate payments totaling $150,000 each over a three-year period.”

This list shows 15 of the 26 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.

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.

What are you signing up for?

Ongoing fees run about 9.0% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.

Initial term10 yrs
Renewal term5 yrs
TerritoryNone (caution)
Initial training190 hrs

Source: FDD 2024 · Items 11, 12, 17

FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal

Contract & Territory Detail

Initial term10 years
Renewal term5 years
Allowed renewalsℹ1
Territory typeNo territory protection
Protected territoryNo
Exclusive territoryℹNo
Online sales rightsℹRestricted
Franchisor can competeYes
Hire a manager?Allowed
Owner-operatorOptional
Non-compete (years)ℹ2 years
Non-compete (miles)ℹ10 mi
Right of first refusalℹYes
Transfer requires consentYes
Termination notice5 days
Termination groundsℹ15
Curable defaultsℹ10
Mandatory arbitrationYes
Arbitration locationPhoenix, Arizona
Jury trial waiverNo
Governing lawAZ
Litigation count26
View Item 3 litigation summary

Concluded litigation involving predecessor The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, affiliates Kahala Franchising, Cold Stone Creamery, SFF/SweetFrog Enterprises, Fresh Enterprises/BF Acquisition (Baja Fresh), Famous Dave's of America, VI BrandCo, Wetzel's Pretzels, Papa Murphy's International, and state administrative actions. Active lawsuit: Kahala Franchising v. Hunter Hammond Enterprises (Georgia, 2023).

Items 10, 11

Training & Operations

Classroom training
40 hrs
On-the-job training
150 hrs
Training location
Online / KTEC in Scottsdale, AZ; in-store at franchisee location or designated location
Ongoing training
Required
Time to open
12 mo
From signing to launch
Site selection
Franchisee with franchisor approval
Franchisor financing
Not offered
Item 10
POS system
Transax
Operating tech stack

Items 5 & 11

Franchisor Support

✓Site selection assistance
✓Grand opening support
✓Lease negotiation help

Technology: Transax

Item 20 · call current owners

Franchisee Contacts

3 owners to call

Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20

Unlock 3 contacts · $49
Free preview
704-942-••••
Unlock all 3 contacts
630-313-••••
514 205 ••••

Frequently asked questions

Frequently Asked Questions

How much does it cost to open a Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop franchise?

The total investment to open a Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop franchise ranges from $282K – $502K, with an initial franchise fee of $30K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).

What do Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop franchise owners earn?

Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD - a voluntary item under the FTC Franchise Rule - so no unit revenue figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.

Who owns Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop?

Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop is franchised by MTY Franchising USA, Inc.. Its parent company is MTY Franchising Inc. (MTY Canada). The ultimate parent named in the FDD is MTY Food Group, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2024 filing.

What is Item 19 in the Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop FDD?

The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.

What is Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop's franchise failure rate?

SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop (fewer than 10 loans on file). Charge-off rates are one way to gauge franchise risk, but not all franchise loans go through the SBA program. We recommend reviewing turnover and closure data in the FDD and speaking with current franchisees.

Is Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop a good franchise to buy?

FranchiseVerdict rates Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop as a C-grade franchise with a verdict score of 39 out of 100 (higher is better). The grade is a deterministic score built from six weighted dimensions — financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency — then calibrated against SBA loan charge-off rates and FDD age. Transparency is one of the six, so a filing that discloses less scores lower on that dimension than one that discloses more. Our rating is based solely on publicly available FDD and government data; we recommend speaking with current franchisees before making any investment decision. This is not investment advice.

Data sourced from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) FOIA records. Not financial advice.

For franchisors

Are you the franchisor?

If you represent Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop, you can request corrections or provide updated information.

Other Quick-Service Restaurants franchises

Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Quick-Service Restaurants category

Data extracted from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) loan disclosures (FOIA). This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.