B65/100FDD 2025
Ivan Ramen — Litigation & Risk
Food & Beverage - Full Service · FDD Items 3, 4 & 5
Lower Risk
No litigation cases disclosed in FDD Items 3 and 4.
Source: FDD Items 3–5
FDD Items 3 & 4
Litigation Metrics
Cases disclosed
0
Total from FDD Items 3 and 4
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
—
Franchisor or officer bankruptcy
Overall risk score
65 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite
Rating
MODERATE
STRONG / MODERATE / CAUTION / AVOID
FDD Items 5, 6 & 17 — what you give up
Contract Risk Indicators
Mandatory arbitration
Not required
You retain the right to sue in court
Jury trial waiver
Waived
You give up the right to a jury trial
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
New York
State whose law governs disputes — relevant if you're not based there
What drove the 65/100 rating
Risk Score Breakdown
- 01MEDOnly 1 franchise unit disclosed — suggests minimal franchising track record or system contraction
- 02MEDNo average revenue or net income data provided (missing Item 19) — impossible to validate ROI claims
- 03MEDHigh initial investment range ($1.02M–$1.98M) with no corresponding disclosed earnings — extreme risk/reward opacity
- 04MINORRamen category has high operational complexity (specialized equipment, food quality control, labor-intensive) with thin margins typical in QSR
- 05MINORUnknown unit growth trajectory — no evidence of system expansion or franchisee success stories
- 06MINOR5% royalty on gross revenues (not net) is standard but only justified if unit economics are transparent
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.