FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Intelligent Assistant litigation history

What Intelligent Assistant 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: 4; 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

Item 3 discloses no pending litigation against IA Franchising. However, restrictive orders against affiliates: (1) FTC injunction against Signarama/Speedy Sign-A-Rama (1998) re earnings misrepresentations; (2) Signarama Maryland consent order (1996) re unregistered sales; (3) TGG/GCZ California consent orders (2021-2022) re unregistered franchise sales and pre-opening fee collection violations. No bankruptcy disclosed in Item 4.

Item 3 (litigation) · 4 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (4)

In the Matter of: The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Great Greek Franchising, LLC and UFG Group, Inc., doing business as United Franchise Group
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Great Greek Franchising, LLC, Graze Craze Franchising, LLC and UFG Group, Inc. · filed 2022-03-04 · California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (two consent orders, TGG/UFG and GCZ/UFG)
“The following orders relates solely to TGG, GCZ and UFG: On March 4, 2022, TGG, GCZ, and UFG entered into consent orders with the State of California, and its Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, as it relates to alleged violations which occurred at a trade show in California.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “As required by the consent orders, TGG, GC, and UFG agreed to desist and refrain from the violations of Corporations Code section(s) 31110, 31201, and 31204, pay an administrative penalty of $5,000 each, send a Notice of Consent Order to TGG franchisees, and contract with an independent monitor for up to three years to assist with developing, implementing, and reviewing policies and procedures of its franchise sales.”
Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff v. Minuteman Press International, Inc., Speedy Sign-A-Rama, USA, Inc., Roy W. Titus and Jeffrey Haber, Defendants
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Speedy Sign-A-Rama, USA, Inc. (Signarama) · filed 1993-06-04 · United States District Court, Eastern District of New York · CV 93-2496
“… (CV 93-2496) Filed on June 4, 1993, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
In the Matter of Speedy Sign-A-Rama, USA, Inc.
settled
Government or regulatory action · Speedy Sign-A-Rama, USA, Inc. (Signarama) · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · S-95-112
“Signarama entered into a consent order with the Securities Commissioner of Maryland in January 1996. The matter is captioned In the Matter of Speedy Sign-A-Rama, USA, Inc. and is Case No. S-95-112.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
In the Matter of: The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Great Greek Franchising, LLC
settled
Government or regulatory action · Great Greek Franchising, LLC (TGG) · California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
“The following order relates solely to TGG: TGG entered into a consent order with the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation of the State of California on August 9, 2021.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

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

Extensive litigation history spanning 29 years (1993 FTC injunction, Maryland 1996, California 2021 & 2022) suggests chronic compliance issues with franchise sales practices and potential predatory patterns
35-year term is unusually long and locks franchisees into relationship with litigation-prone franchisor for over 3 decades

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 Intelligent Assistant verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls