FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Home Instead litigation history

What Home Instead 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: 6; 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

Three pending franchisee groups (WJM/Nebraska, Managed Care/California, REM/Michigan) allege breach of a March 2024 settlement agreement re: early renewal rights (Nebraska case dismissed with prejudice); L4 Enterprises franchisee suit alleging misrepresentation and lack of support; Home Instead-initiated suit against Bidwell Home Care to enforce non-compete (resolved via injunction); concluded suits against Head 2 Head and Elderly Care Services for Lanham Act/trade secret violations (settled 2024); concluded Elder Care Providers of Indiana suit resulting in $500,000 judgment for Home Instead (settled 2018).

Item 3 (litigation) · 6 matters disclosed · 2 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (2)

L4 Enterprises, Inc. v. Home Instead, Inc.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-12-24 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern · 25CUB01090
“… (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, Case No. 25CUB01090).”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
WJM Home Care, LLC, et al. v. Home Instead, Inc.; Managed Care, Inc., et al. v. Home Instead, Inc.; REM Senior Services Corp., et al. v. Home Instead, Inc.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025 · U.S. District Courts for the District of Nebraska, the Central District of California and the Eastern District of Michigan · 8:25-cv-00654; 5:25-cv-03149; 2:25-cv-13746
“WJM Home Care, LLC, et al. v. Home Instead, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Case No. 8:25-cv-00654) (“Nebraska Lawsuit”);”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The California and Michigan Lawsuits involve substantially similar allegations and remain pending. Home Instead’s Motion to Dismiss in the remaining pending actions contends that the Settlement Agreement does not provide the early renewal rights alleged by plaintiffs and that it has not breached the agreement.”

Concluded (4)

Home Instead, Inc. v. Bidwell Home Care Service, LLC, et al.
concluded
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025 · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 25-00754
“… (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 25-00754).”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Court entered the stipulated permanent injunction against a former franchisee on December 23, 2025. The litigation has been resolved and is no longer pending.”
Home Instead, Inc. v. Elderly Care Services, LLC et al.
settled
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2023-09-29 · U.S. District Court of Nebraska · 8:23cv00431
“… (U.S. District Court of Nebraska, Case No. 8:23cv00431. On September 29, 2023, we asserted claims against franchisee, Elderly Care Services, LLC (“Elderly Care”), and its guarantors for violation of the”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Elderly Care ceased to be a Home Instead franchisee; a stipulated judgment was entered in our favor on all of our claims and will include an award of monetary damages; a stipulated order of permanent injunction was entered against Elderly Care enforcing certain post-term covenants as stated in the” (page 18)
Home Instead, Inc. v. Head 2 Head, Inc. et al.
settled
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2023-09-27 · U.S. District Court of Nebraska (related action: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Case No. 6:23CV00067) · 8:23cv00424
“… (U.S. District Court of Nebraska, Case No. 8:23cv00424). On September 27, 2023, we asserted claims against franchisee, Head 2 Head, Inc. (“Head”), and its guarantors for violation of the Lanham Act and”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Head ceased to be a Home Instead franchisee; a stipulated judgment was entered in our favor on all of our claims and included an award of monetary damages; a stipulated order of permanent injunction will be entered against Head enforcing certain post-term covenants as stated in the order, including”
Elder Care Providers of Indiana, Inc. v. Home Instead, Inc.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2014-11-18 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana · 1:14cv01894
“… Case No. 1:14cv01894, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on November 18, 2014.”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On March 30, 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, including a stipulated judgment and order, under which: (1) judgment was entered in favor of Home Instead, Inc. on”

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 litigation cases involving breach of non-compete and wrongful termination indicate franchisor-franchisee relationship strain
Franchisor winning wrongful termination counterclaims suggests potential aggressive contract enforcement or termination practices

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