B61/100FDD 2025
Kuma Ani — 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
61 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite
Rating
MODERATE
STRONG / MODERATE / CAUTION / AVOID
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
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 61/100 rating
Risk Score Breakdown
- 01MEDOnly 2 existing franchised units — extremely limited system size makes performance data unreliable and raises scalability concerns
- 02MEDNet income not disclosed in FDD Item 19 — impossible to validate profitability claims or understand true unit economics
- 03MINORHigh investment-to-unit ratio ($344.5k-$544k) against average revenue of $1.08M suggests thin margins and extended payback periods
- 04MINORUnknown unit growth trajectory — no clarity on whether the 2-unit system is growing, stagnant, or declining
- 05MEDMinimal franchisee sample size (2 units) creates significant selection bias and survivorship bias in disclosed revenue figures
- 06MINOR5% royalty on gross revenue (not net) adds fixed cost burden during slow periods
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.