Skip to main content
FranchiseVerdict
Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings logo
BAbove average53/100FDD 2025

Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings: Litigation & Risk

Full-Service Restaurants · FDD Items 3, 4 & 5

Back to overview

Elevated Risk

9 cases disclosed in FDD Items 3 and 4.

Source: FDD Items 3–5

FDD Items 3 & 4

Litigation Metrics

Cases disclosed
9
Total from FDD Items 3 and 4
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None
Franchisor or officer bankruptcy
Verdict score
53 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite · higher is better
Rating
B
A / B / C / D / F verdict grade

7(a) FOIA data · FY2020–present

SBA Loan Performance

Aggregated from public SBA 7(a) loan disclosures. Charge-off rate is the share of loans that were charged off or settled for less than the full balance.

Total 7(a) loans
5
Government-backed loans issued
Charge-off rate
N/A
vs 16% franchise average
5-yr charge-off rate
N/A
Defaults
N/A
Loans charged off or defaulted
Total loan volume
$2.5M
Avg loan size
$494K
Participating lenders
5

FDD Items 5, 6 & 17: What You Give Up

Contract Risk Indicators

Mandatory arbitration
Required
Disputes resolved outside court, limits your legal options
Jury trial waiver
Not waived
Non-compete
2 yrs
Post-termination restriction on similar businesses
Franchisor can compete
Yes
Franchisor can open competing locations in or near your territory
Right of first refusal
Yes
Franchisor can match any purchase offer when you try to sell
Governing law
CA
State whose law governs disputes. Relevant if you're not based there

Extracted from FDD Item 3

Litigation Detail

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.

What drove the 53/100 verdict

Risk Score Breakdown

  1. 01MEDUnit count declined 5.0% YoY (41 units) indicating system contraction and potential franchisee struggles
  2. 02HIGHActive litigation including putative class action on securities statements and franchisee lawsuit over marketing fund misuse suggests governance and transparency issues
  3. 03MINORNo net income disclosure despite $1.77M average revenue raises profitability questions and transparency concerns
  4. 04HIGHMultiple concluded litigation actions (securities class actions, registration violations, breach of contract disputes) indicate chronic compliance and relationship management problems
  5. 05HIGHGoing concern status is FALSE — potential financial distress at franchisor level threatens support and viability
  6. 06MINORHigh investment range ($539K–$2.9M) combined with 6% royalty creates significant financial burden with unproven return
  7. 07MINORArbitration demands initiated against former franchisees suggests adversarial franchisor-franchisee relationships and potential disputes over obligations

Severity inferred from FDD text. Not a regulatory or legal classification

Litigation data from FDD Items 3, 4, and 5. SBA data from public 7(a) FOIA records (FY2020–present). Not legal advice. Consult a franchise attorney before signing any franchise agreement.