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 & 4 at a glance
What the filing discloses
- Cases disclosed
- 9
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest disclosed settlement
- $500K
- As stated in Item 3
- 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).
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?