FranchiseVerdict
Kyochon 1991 logo
B65/100FDD 2025

Kyochon 1991 — Litigation & Risk

Food & Beverage - Full Service · FDD Items 3, 4 & 5

Back to overview

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
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
California
State whose law governs disputes — relevant if you're not based there

What drove the 65/100 rating

Risk Score Breakdown

  1. 01MEDOnly 5 units system-wide indicates extremely limited track record and minimal scalability validation
  2. 02MEDNo revenue or profitability disclosure (missing Item 19) prevents ROI assessment and raises transparency concerns
  3. 03MINORUnprotected territory creates direct competition risk from other franchisees in same market
  4. 04MINORShort 3-year term limits franchisee investment recovery window and increases renewal uncertainty
  5. 05MEDHigh investment range ($543.5K–$1.088M) with no disclosed average unit volumes to validate payback period
  6. 06MINORUnknown unit growth trajectory suggests stagnation or lack of franchisor expansion capability

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.