FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Heavyweight Waste litigation history

What Heavyweight Waste 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: 5; 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

4 cases involving affiliate Smash Franchise Partners: (1) former franchisees won arbitration award of $2.875M for misrepresentation; (2) former franchisee settled for $80K refund + $67.5K deposit return; (3) Republic Services federal lawsuit over property damage and interference; (4) former SMT Holdings shareholders suing Justin Haskin for fraud in ownership transfer

Item 3 (litigation) · 5 matters disclosed · 3 pending listed

Litigation cases

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (3)

Dean Cheetham, Camden Cheetham, and Slate Mountain, LLC v. Smash Franchise Partners, LLC and Justin Haskin
pending
Brought by a franchisee · Smash Franchise Partners, LLC (SFP) · filed 2023-11-09 · American Arbitration Association · 01-23-0005-1083
“… (AAA Case No. 01-23-0005-1083).”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Rebecca and Thomas Voss v. Smash Franchise Partners, LLC and Justin Haskin
pending
Brought by a franchisee · Smash Franchise Partners, LLC (SFP) · filed 2022-12-15 · Arbitration; U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (motion to vacate) · 1:24-cv-1072
“… (Case No. 1-22- 0005-2244; Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-1072).”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Ryan A. Haskin and Little Business, LLC v. Justin R. Haskin, WIJG LLC, and SMT Holdings, LLC
pending
SMT Holdings, LLC · filed 2022-04-14 · Superior Court in Hamilton County, Indiana · 29D03-2204-PL-002654
“… (Case No 29D03-2204-PL-002654).”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (2)

In the Matter of Determining Whether There Has Been a Violation of the Franchise Investment Protection Act by Smash Franchise Partners, LLC d.b.a Smash My Trash and Justin Robert Haskin
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Smash Franchise Partners, LLC (SFP) · filed 2024-07-30 · Washington Securities Administrator · S-23-3533-24-CO01
“… (Order No. S-23-3533-24-CO01).”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Kevin Blanchat et al v. Smash Franchise Partners, LLC, Justin Haskin, and Franchise FastLane, Inc.
judgment
Brought by a franchisee · Smash Franchise Partners, LLC (SFP) · filed 2020-10-16 · Eastern District of Washington; American Arbitration Association (01-20-0015-7924) · 2:20-CV0380
“… (Case No. 2:20-CV0380);”Page 14 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

Multiple active and concluded litigations involving misrepresentation, with a $2.875M award to plaintiffs indicating substantiated fraud claims
High unit growth from 9 to 14 franchised outlets in the latest year (18 new units) appears unsustainable given litigation backdrop and may indicate aggressive recruitment masking unit 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 Heavyweight Waste verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls