FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings litigation history

What Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings 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: 15; 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

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.

Item 3 (litigation) · 15 matters disclosed · 2 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (1)

CRIT2 CORP, et al. (multiple Hurricane franchisees) v. HURRICANE AMT, LLC
pending
Brought 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
“… 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, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (1)

Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen
pending
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
“… (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)
settled
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
dismissed
Brought 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
“… 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.
settled
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)
“… 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)
settled
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.
dismissed
Brought 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
“… 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)
settled
Government 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)
settled
Government 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.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Active litigation including putative class action on securities statements and franchisee lawsuit over marketing fund misuse suggests governance and transparency issues
Multiple concluded litigation actions (securities class actions, registration violations, breach of contract disputes) indicate chronic compliance and relationship management problems

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 Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls