FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Griswold litigation history

What Griswold 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: 7; 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

Item 3 discloses 8 completed actions: 2 Virginia securities/franchise regulator actions against predecessor Griswold Special Care, Inc. (settlements of $2,000 costs, and $10,000 penalty + $5,000 costs); 3 related 2014-2015 franchisee suits/arbitration (Andersen, Mull, Jenkins) resolved via a 2016 Global Settlement Agreement paying $700,000; a 2019 Texas negligence/fraud suit (MacPhee) settled for $34,848.25; a 2012 Indiana Securities Division administrative complaint against affiliated Valiant entities (penalty $8,000 + $5,000 costs); and a 2023 AAA arbitration (Griswold Homecare of Baton Rouge) resulting in a 2024 interim award of $2,601,840 plus $1,614,263.21 in fees/costs. No pending litigation and no bankruptcy disclosed.

Item 3 (litigation) · 7 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor and its predecessor

Concluded (6)

Scott MacPhee, individually and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Carolyn MacPhee, and Robert MacPhee individually v. DeCoursin Special Care, Inc. d/b/a Griswold Home Care and Griswold International, LLC
concluded
Brought by a third party · filed 2019-08-01 · Collin County District Court, Texas · 471-04114-2019
“… (Case No. 471-04114-2019, Collin County District Court, Texas).”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On or around May 12, 2021, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement and Release where GHC did not admit any liability and paid Plaintiffs $34,848.25 in exchange for a release of claims.”
Mull v. Griswold International, LLC
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2015-04-09 · United States District Court for the District of Colorado · 1:15-cv-00737-WYD-KLM
“… (Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00737-WYD-KLM, District of Colorado, Colorado).”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On or about May 19, 2016, the case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement described below under “Global Settlement Agreement.” (page 15)
Mark Andersen et. al. v. Griswold International, LLC et. al.
concluded
filed 2014-06-03 · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 14-cv-02560
“… (Docket No. 14-cv-02560, United States District Court for the Northern District of California).”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On or about May 19, 2016, the case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement described below under “Global Settlement Agreement.”
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it
- Jenkins, et. al. v. Griswold International, LLC, et. al.
  concluded
  names the franchisor · filed 2014-09-15 · American Arbitration Association · 1-14-0001-4884
  “… (Case No.1-14-0001-4884, American Arbitration Association).”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
  Outcome: “On or about May 19, 2016, the arbitration was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement described below under “Global Settlement Agreement.”
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.
Indiana Office of the Secretary of State, Securities Division v. Valiant Industries, Inc., Valiant Health Care, Inc. DBA Accessible Home Health Care, Valiant ACMS, Inc. F/K/A Valiant Healthcare Inc., Accessible Healthcare Services, Inc. DBA Accessible Home Health Care, Aarif M. Dahod, John Roswell,
concluded
filed 2012-04-09 · Indiana Securities Commission · 11-0248 CD
“… Mirella Salem, and Steven Turner (Administrative Complaint filed with the Indiana Securities Commission on April 9, 2012, and amended on November 26, 2012, Cause No. 11-0248 CD).”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On April 19, 2016, the Securities Division issued a Judgment and Final Order, under which the respondents were ordered to permanently cease and desist from violating any provision of the Indiana Franchise Act, pay a civil penalty in the amount of $8,000”
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Griswold Special Care of Virginia, Inc. and Special Care, Inc. dba Griswold Special Care
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Griswold Special Care, Inc. / Special Care, Inc. · Virginia State Corporation Commission, Division of Securities and Retail Franchising · SEC-2004-00001 and SEC-2004-00002
“… (Case Nos. SEC-2004-00001 and SEC-2004-00002).”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Griswold Special Care, Inc. agreed to a settlement order, issued by the Virginia Commission on September 27, 2004, in which it withdrew its then-pending franchise registration renewal application in Virginia, without prejudice to any future filings in Virginia, reimbursed the Virginia Division for $2,000 of its costs of investigation and agreed not to violate the Virginia Retail Franchising Act in the future.”
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Griswold Special Care, Inc. and Kent C. Griswold
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Griswold Special Care, Inc. (with its principal Kent C. Griswold) · Virginia State Corporation Commission, Division of Securities and Retail Franchising · SEC-2008-00036 and SEC-2009-00032
“… (Case Nos. SEC- 2008-00036 and SEC-2009-00032). In March 2008, the Virginia Division undertook a review”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Griswold Special Care, Inc. agreed to a settlement order, issued by the Virginia Commission on May 29, 2009, in which Griswold Special Care, Inc. paid a $10,000 penalty and reimbursed the Virginia Division for $5,000 of its costs of investigation,” (page 14)

Status not stated in the filing (1)

Griswold Homecare of Baton Rouge v. Griswold International, LLC
Brought by the franchisor · filed 2023-01-17 · American Arbitration Association · 01-23-0000-2034
“… (AAA Case No. 01-23-0000- 2034). On January 17, 2023, Griswold Home Care of Baton Rouge (“Franchisee”), one of the remaining franchisees operating under the Registry Business Model—a legacy model offered by GHC until 2014—filed a complaint with the American Arbitration Association against Griswold International, LLC for breach of contract and unjust enrichment,”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On December 12, 2024, following an arbitration of the parties’ claims, the Arbitrator issued an interim award in favor of the Franchisee, finding that the scope of the indemnity in Franchisee’s form of Franchise Agreement was broad enough to encompass damages caused by the actions of the Louisiana Department of Health. The interim award included damages in the amount of $2,601,840 plus reasonable counsel fees and ...”

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 7 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.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Multiple active litigation cases including state regulatory investigations (Virginia, Indiana) and collective action wage claims—suggests systemic compliance or labor practice issues

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