Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $854K – $2.9M
- Disclosed sales
- $1.8M
- gross sales, not profit
- SBA charge-off
- Under 10 loans (5)
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Hurricane Grill & Wings is a casual-dining franchise serving jumbo wings, burgers, tacos, and a full bar in a tropical setting. Franchisees run the restaurants, managing the kitchen, bar, and dining service.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings franchise requires a total initial investment of $854K – $2.9M, including a $50K franchise fee and an ongoing 6.0% royalty[2]. Per the 2025 FDD, average unit revenue was $1.8M[2]. FranchiseVerdict grade: B (Above average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: 2025 filing · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: medium - a newer filing may exist
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 scored8 of 8 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $854K – $2.9M
- 31st pct Service Resta…
- Avg gross sales
- $1.8M
- Outlet subsetNet sales9th pct Service Resta…
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- 25th pct Service Resta…
- Units
- 38
- 25th pct Service Resta…
- SBA charge-off
- N/A
Quick verdict · Full-Service Restaurants · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Full-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 $854K – $2.9M including a $50K franchise fee, 6.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSAverage unit revenue of $1.8M/year (median $1.6M) (reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system).
- RISKVerdict B (Above average), verdict score 53/100 (higher is better).
- GROWTHNegative: net -2 franchised outlets in the latest year (1 opened, 3 closed); 1 signed but not yet open (Item 20).
- LEGAL15 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of these, 7 name the franchisor itself, 8 its parent, affiliates or predecessor. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- Hurricane AMT, LLC
- Parent company
- FAT Brands Royalty I, LLC (direct parent); FAT Brands, Inc. (ultimate parent)
- FDD Item 1, page 8 of the 2025 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- FAT Brands, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 8 of the 2025 FDD
- CEO title
- President and Chief Executive Officer
- Taylor Wiederhorn
- Incorporated in
- DE
- HQ
- 9720 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500, Beverly Hills, California 90212
- Auditor
- Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $4.5M
- vs $4.9M prior year
- Management churn noted
- Frequent turnover
- Item 2 disclosed frequent executive changes
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 8
12 other brands on this site name FAT Brands, Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
- Buffalo’s CafeB
- Elevation BurgerC
- FatburgerD
- Fazoli'sC
- GREAT AMERICAN COOKIESA
- HOT DOG ON A STICKB
- Johnny RocketsD
- Marble Slab CreameryC
- Native Grill and WingsB
- PretzelmakerB
- Round Table PizzaB
- Twin PeaksA
Portfolio: FAT Brands
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2025 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
- Taylor Wiederhorn
- Headquarters
- CA
- Founded
- 1991
- FDD year
- 2025
- States available
- 7
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 180% above the typical full-service restaurants franchise.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7
FDD Item 7 · 2025 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Initial franchise fee | $50K | $50K |
| Working capital (3–6 mo) | $30K | $60K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $774K | $2.8M |
| Total initial investment | $854K | $2.9M |
Source: Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings 2025 FDD, Items 5 and 7[2]. “Equipment, build-out, other” is computed as total minus disclosed line items above.
Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate
The Vitals
- Total investment
- $854K – $2.9M
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $30K – $60K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $50K – $50K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 2.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 8.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 6.0% of net sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 2.0% of net sales |
| Technology fee | $1K |
| Training fee | $48K |
| Transfer fee | $15K |
| Renewal fee | $20K |
| Inventory (initial) | $10K – $26K |
| Total fee load | 8.0% of rev |
What do units actually make?
Average unit sales run 10% above the full-service restaurants norm.
Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system
Reported as net sales, not gross sales
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 19
Single-unit · not modelled
Returns at a glance
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit, and the operating costs that turn one into the other are in no filing. We publish no modelled return for Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings until someone supplies them — yours, in the models below.
—
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for 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.
Total invested capital · disclosed
$1.9M
Item 7 initial investment plus working capital, as filed — the one figure here that needs no assumption.
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
What one unit earns on your invested capital
Model A · Single-Unit Return
Computes unlevered return on invested capital (ROIC) for a single franchise unit, read against the 30–60% reference band · Yale SOM, Post-MBA Path Exhibit 2 (2023). Below that band a passive index fund likely outperforms; above it the franchisor has pricing power you're subsidizing.
Note: Item 19 revenue is what the franchisor discloses, and it is the top line only — gross sales are not profit. No FDD discloses the operating costs that turn one into the other, so those fields start empty and nothing is modelled until you supply them from your own lease quote, labor market and build-out budget.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings unit return on the cash you put in?
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.
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 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.
What 25 units return when you use SBA financing
Model B · Return on Equity: Debt-Financed Acquisition
Models a 25-unit portfolio acquisition financed with an SBA 7(a) loan. Shows equity IRR (your return on cash invested), DSCR (how safely the cash flow covers debt service), and the capital stack (SBA + seller + equity breakdown).
This is the “search fund” or “entrepreneurship through acquisition” scenario: you buy an existing multi-unit operator, use leverage to amplify returns, and either operate or hire management. The 25-unit size is the typical minimum for an SBA-backed franchise portfolio acquisition to pencil as a full-time income.
What “return on equity” means here: if you put in $500K of your own cash and the business generates enough EBITDA to pay down debt and grow, your equity IRR is the annual return on that $500K, including the value created when you eventually sell. Target IRR for a search fund is typically 25–35%.
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for 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.
A 25-unit return is built on a per-unit EBITDA. Fill in the operating costs in Model A above and this model runs on that figure, or take the whole scenario to the full ROI workbench, where the portfolio and LBO models accept your own per-unit economics directly.
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: 2025 FDD
Financial Performance
Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system
Reported as net sales, not gross sales
- Avg gross sales
- $1.8M
- Per unit, per year
- Median gross sales
- $1.6M
Gross sales are revenue before expenses — not profit. Actual owner earnings depend on rent, labor, royalties, marketing fees, and debt service.
- Item 19 type
- net sales and cost data
- Sample size
- 25 outlets
- vs category median 18
- Range (low → high)
- $566K→$5.3MCited, not corroborated — printed on page 77 of the 2025 FDD. Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
- Cohort dispersion (min → max)
- Reporting year
- 2024
- Fiscal year the figures cover
- Source filing
- FDD 2025
- Disclosed in the 2025 filing, covering 2024
- Transparency
- 7 / 10
- vs category median 3 / 10 · above
Compared against 801 Full-Service Restaurants brands
Revenue is only 0.9x the investment. This means each unit may take 5+ years to recoup the initial outlay at typical margins.
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Unit economics
Average unit generates $1.8M/year in gross sales. Revenue-to-investment ratio: 0.9x. Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 8.0% (near the Full-Service Restaurants median).
Disclosure
Transparency score 7/10 — this franchisor discloses detailed breakdowns (quartiles, segments, or cohort data). Buyers can model unit economics with higher confidence.
Operator retention
System contracting at -7.3% CAGR over 3 years. Investigate whether closures are franchisor-driven consolidation or franchisee exits.
Multi-unit rate
Only 18% of franchisees own multiple units. Could indicate challenging economics or a young system where operators haven't had time to expand.
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 Full-Service Restaurants medians
How Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings Compares
Category median of published Full-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?
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 38
- Opened
- 1
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 3
- Terminated
- 0
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 0
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 7.9%
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
- Multi-unit owners
- 17.6%
- Net growth (3-yr)
- -7.3%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- -7.3%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 0
- Not renewed
- 0
- Transferred
- 2
- Reacquired
- 0
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 1
- 0.03 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 3
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
- Transfer rate
- 5.3%
- Owners selling to other franchisees
- Ceased ops
- 7.9%
- Units that stopped operating
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 7 states with active franchisees
The Territory Map
Derived from franchisee contact records. Shows states with at least one current operator. Not where the franchisor is registered to sell new units (that data is re-extracting in a future refresh).
States derived from franchisee contact records (FDD Item 20). Shows states with at least one current operator on file. Full state registration data (Item 12) will appear on a future FDD refresh.
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
44 current owners across 9 states.
- FL 28
- NY 8
- CA 2
- AL 1
- AZ 1
- CR 1
- KS 1
- SR 1
- TX 1
Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA loan disclosures. This brand has only 5 7(a) loans on file; statistical reliability is limited below 10 loans.
- Total loans
- 5
- Loan volume
- $2.5M
- Median loan
- $494K
- average
- Charge-off rate
- Under 10 loans (5)
- Insufficient SBA coverage: 5 loans, rate hidden below 10
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- Under 10 loans (5)
- 5-yr charge-off
- Under 10 loans (5)
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 5
- Defaults
- N/A
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
What could kill this investment?
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
High-risk franchise with declining unit count, active litigation regarding securities and marketing fund practices, undisclosed profitability metrics, and franchisor financial distress indicators that suggest significant operational and legal risk to prospective investors.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Pending: (1) Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands securities class action (2024); (2) Franchisee group (20 plaintiffs) v. Hurricane AMT marketing fund misuse (2024). Franchisor-initiated: 6 AAA arbitration demands filed April 2025 against former franchisees for payment/inspection obligations. Several concluded cases involving FAT Brands securities litigation and affiliate regulatory matters.
Largest disclosed settlement: $2,500,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Item 1 discloses franchisor's total revenue for fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 was $4,514,288, none of which was derived from required purchases or leases. Audited consolidated financial statements (Exhibit A) audited by Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP (opinion dated April 11, 2025) for fiscal years ended December 29, 2024 and December 31, 2023; FY2022 audited by other auditors. Balance sheet / statement of operations detail figures (assets, liabilities, member's equity, net income) not present in extracted text.
ⓘ 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 53 / 100 verdict
- 01MEDUnit count declined 5.0% YoY (41 units) indicating system contraction and potential franchisee struggles
- 02HIGHActive litigation including putative class action on securities statements and franchisee lawsuit over marketing fund misuse suggests governance and transparency issues
- 03MINORNo net income disclosure despite $1.77M average revenue raises profitability questions and transparency concerns
- 04HIGHMultiple concluded litigation actions (securities class actions, registration violations, breach of contract disputes) indicate chronic compliance and relationship management problems
- 05MINORArbitration demands initiated against former franchisees suggests adversarial franchisor-franchisee relationships and potential disputes over obligations
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail15 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (1)
CRIT2 CORP, et al. (multiple Hurricane franchisees) v. HURRICANE AMT, LLC
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2024-12-20 · Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Circuit Civil Division · 50-2024-CA-011567-XXXA-MB
“v. HURRICANE AMT, LLC. CASE NO. 50-2024-CA-011567-XXXA-MB, Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Circuit Civil Division. On December 20, 2024, the Plaintiffs, multiple Hurricane brand franchisees, filed a lawsuit against Hurricane AMT, LLC (“Hurricane”) alleging that the Hurricane brand marketing fund has not been used for the benefit of the”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Status not stated in the filing (6)
Hurricane AMT, LLC vs Beachside Endeavors, LLC; Abeed Vanjaria
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-04-09 · American Arbitration Association · 01-25-0001-7622
“Hurricane AMT, LLC vs Beachside Endeavors, LLC; Abeed Vanjaria - Case 01-25-0001-7622 American Arbitration Association. On April 9, 2025 we filed a demand for arbitration against a former franchisee seeking enforcement of its payment and inspection obligations under the franchise agreement.”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Hurricane AMT, LLC vs Camcor Restaurant Group, Inc.
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-04-09 · American Arbitration Association · 01-25-0001- 7625
“Hurricane AMT, LLC, a Florida limited liability vs Camcor Restaurant Group, Inc., a Florida - Case 01-25-0001- 7625 American Arbitration Association. On April 9, 2025 we filed a demand for arbitration against a former franchisee seeking enforcement of its payment and inspection obligations under the franchise agreement.”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Hurricane AMT, LLC vs Franchise Partners, LLC
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-04-09 · American Arbitration Association · 01-25- 0001-7626
“Hurricane AMT, LLC, a Florida limited liability vs Franchise Partners, LLC, an Arizona limited - Case 01-25- 0001-7626 American Arbitration Association. On April 9, 2025 we filed a demand for arbitration against”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Hurricane AMT, LLC vs Hurricane Wings of Palm City, LLC
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-04-09 · American Arbitration Association · 01- 25-0001-7627
“Hurricane AMT, LLC, a Florida limited liability vs Hurricane Wings of Palm City, LLC, a Florida - Case 01- 25-0001-7627 American Arbitration Association. On April 9, 2025 we filed a demand for arbitration against a former franchisee seeking enforcement of its payment and inspection obligations under the franchise agreement.”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Hurricane AMT, LLC vs Hurricane Wings of Stuart, LLC
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-04-09 · American Arbitration Association · 01-25-0001-7628
“Hurricane AMT, LLC, a Florida limited liability vs Hurricane Wings of Stuart, LLC, a Florida limited - Case 01-25-0001-7628 American Arbitration Association. On April 9, 2025 we filed a demand for arbitration against a former franchisee seeking enforcement of its payment and inspection obligations under the franchise agreement.”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Hurricane AMT, LLC vs Tikk Grill and Wings, LLC
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-04-09 · American Arbitration Association · 01- 25-0001-7629
“Hurricane AMT, LLC, a Florida limited liability vs Tikk Grill and Wings, LLC, a Florida limited - Case 01- 25-0001-7629 American Arbitration Association. On April 9, 2025 we filed a demand for arbitration against a former franchisee seeking enforcement of its payment and inspection obligations under the franchise agreement.”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (1)
Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen
pendingThird-party plaintiff · FAT Brands, Inc. (with officers Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen) · filed 2024-06-07 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:24-cv-04775-MWF-MAA
“Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-04775-MWF-MAA) On June 7, 2024, plaintiff Mitchell Kates, a putative investor in FAT, filed a putative class action lawsuit against FAT, Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G.”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Concluded (7)
Robert J. Matthews, et al., v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick (consolidated with Chipman as In re FAT Brands Inc. Securities Litigation)
settledThird-party plaintiff · FAT Brands, Inc. (with officers Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick) · filed 2022-03-18 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:22-cv-01820
“Robert J. Matthews, et al., v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:22-cv-01820). On March 18, 2022, plaintiff Robert J.”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In August 2022, after mediation the parties agreed to settle the litigation. Pursuant to the settlement, FAT agreed to pay on behalf of the defendants $2,500,000 in cash and $500,000 in Class A common stock of FAT to the class plaintiffs, the plaintiffs released all claims against the defendants, and the case was dismissed with prejudice in February 2023.”
Ieman Shahi vs. Fatburger North America, Inc., Andrew Alan Wiederhorn, Taylor Andrew Wiederhorn, et al
dismissedBrought by a franchisee · Fatburger North America, Inc. (and Andrew A. Wiederhorn, Taylor A. Wiederhorn) · filed 2019-07-08 · Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles · 19STCV23772
“Ieman Shahi vs. Fatburger North America, Inc., Andrew Alan Wiederhorn, Taylor Andrew Wiederhorn, et al, Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 19STCV23772 (July 8, 2019). On July 8, 2019, Ieman Shahi (“Shahi”) filed a complaint against FBNA as well as Andrew A. Wiederhorn and Taylor A. Wiederhorn.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The case was dismissed on October 21, 2021.”
Adam Vignola, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al.
settledThird-party plaintiff · FAT Brands Inc. (Original Defendants) · filed 2018-08-24 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:18-cv-07469 (2:18-cv-07469-PSG-PLA)
“Adam Vignola, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:18-cv-07469. On August 24, 2018, the Original Defendants were named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit entitled Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On September 25, 2020, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release pursuant to which lead plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their individual claims against defendants with prejudice in exchange for a payment by or on behalf of defendants of $75,000.”
Eric Rojany, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al. (consolidated with Alden v. FAT Brands, Case No. BC716017)
settledThird-party plaintiff · FAT Brands Inc. (with officers, directors, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. and Tripoint Global Equities, LLC) · filed 2018-06-07 · Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles · BC708539
“Eric Rojany, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al., Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC708539, filed on June 7, 2018 against FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Marc L.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Mutual Release pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to dismiss his individual claims against defendants with prejudice in exchange for a payment by or on behalf of defendants of $50,000.” (page 20)
P&K Food Market, Inc. vs. Buffalo’s Franchise Concepts, Inc., Fog Cutter Capital Group, Shaun Curtis, Andy Wiederhorn et al.
dismissedBrought by a franchisee · Buffalo’s Franchise Concepts, Inc. (with Fog Cutter Capital Group, Shaun Curtis, Andy Wiederhorn) · filed 2018-07-13 · Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles · 18STLC09534
“P&K Food Market, Inc. vs. Buffalo’s Franchise Concepts, Inc., Fog Cutter Capital Group, Shaun Curtis, Andy Wiederhorn et al., Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 18STLC09534 (July 13, 2018). On July 13, 2018, P&K Food Market, Inc.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The case was dismissed on February 13, 2019.”
Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc. (Case No. SEC-2022-00034)
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Fatburger North America, Inc. · Virginia State Corporation Commission · SEC-2022-00034
“Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc. (Case No. SEC-2022-00034, Settlement Order entered Jul. 12, 2023, Final Order entered Oct. 23, 2023). This matter involves allegations by the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s Division of Securities and Retail Franchising that Fatburger North America, Inc., offered and sold 3 Virginia franchises”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“FBNA reached a settlement in principle in May 2023, without admitting or denying the allegations, and agreed: (a) to offer the affected franchisees an opportunity to rescind their franchises; (b) to pay $27,000 to the Commonwealth of Virginia; and (3) not to violate the Virginia franchise law in the future.”
Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc. (Case No. SEC-2022-0042)
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Fatburger North America, Inc. · Virginia State Corporation Commission · SEC-2022-0042
“Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc. (Case No. SEC-2022-0042, Settlement Order entered February 21, 2025, Final Order entered April 23, 2025). This matter involves allegations by the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s Division of Securities and Retail Franchising (the “Division”) that Fatburger North America, Inc., when seeking an”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Without admitting or denying the allegations, FBNA made an offer of settlement in the amount of Five thousand Dollars ($5,000) in civil penalty and Five Hundred Dollars ($500) to defray the costs of investigation. The Division accepted the settlement and entered the final order.”
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 8.0% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 15 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 10 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 2 |
| Territory type | Protected territory |
| Protected territory | Yes |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Territory radius | 1 mi |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Restricted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Optional |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 2 years |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 5 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 5 days |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 2 |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | Los Angeles, California (county where headquarters is located) |
| Jury trial waiver | No |
| Governing law | CA |
| Litigation count | 15 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Pending: (1) Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands securities class action (2024); (2) Franchisee group (20 plaintiffs) v. Hurricane AMT marketing fund misuse (2024). Franchisor-initiated: 6 AAA arbitration demands filed April 2025 against former franchisees for payment/inspection obligations. Several concluded cases involving FAT Brands securities litigation and affiliate regulatory matters.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 80 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 210 hrs
- Training location
- Certified Training Restaurant, West Palm Beach, Florida area; online via The Eye
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Field support
- 80 hrs/yr
- On-site visits per year
- Time to open
- 7 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- Franchisee with franchisor approval; franchisee must use designated/approved real estate broker
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
44 owners to call
Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to open a Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings franchise?
The total investment to open a Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings franchise ranges from $854K – $2.9M, with an initial franchise fee of $50K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings franchise owners earn?
According to Item 19 of the Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings FDD, the average gross sales per unit is $1.8M. The median is $1.6M. Important context: Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system; Reported as net sales, not gross sales. Note: this is gross revenue, not profit. Actual owner earnings vary based on location, operating costs, and management.
Who owns Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings?
Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings is franchised by Hurricane AMT, LLC. Its parent company is FAT Brands Royalty I, LLC (direct parent); FAT Brands, Inc. (ultimate parent). The ultimate parent named in the FDD is FAT Brands, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings 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 Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings's franchise failure rate?
SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings (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.
How many Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings has 38 total units in the United States, including 38 franchised units and 0 company-owned units. 1 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings as a B-grade franchise with a verdict score of 53 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 Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Full-Service Restaurants franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Full-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.