Manchu WOK Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $490K – $821K
- Disclosed sales
- $1.9M
- gross sales, not profit
- SBA charge-off
- Under 10 loans (1)
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Manchu WOK is a quick-service franchise serving wok-prepared Chinese food, often in malls and food courts. Franchisees run the locations, managing food prep, staffing, and counter service.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Manchu WOK franchise requires a total initial investment of $490K – $821K, including a $30K franchise fee and an ongoing 7.0% royalty[2]. Per the 2025 FDD, average unit revenue was $1.9M[2]. FranchiseVerdict grade: B (Above average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: 2025 filing · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: medium - a newer filing may exist
Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✗ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored7 of 7 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $490K – $821K
- 74th pct Service Resta…
- Avg gross sales
- $1.9M
- 32nd pct Service Resta…
- Royalty
- 7.0%
- 90th pct Service Resta…
- Units
- 15
- 45th pct Service Resta…
- SBA charge-off
- N/A
Quick verdict · Quick-Service Restaurants · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Quick-Service Restaurants median · No shading = within ±10% · Red = unfavorable by >10% · Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a)
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Not financial advice. Methodology
Bottom line
- COSTTotal investment $490K – $821K including a $30K franchise fee, 7.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSAverage unit revenue of $1.9M/year (median $1.1M).
- RISKVerdict B (Above average), verdict score 50/100 (higher is better).
- GROWTHFlat: no net change in franchised outlets in the latest year (1 opened, 1 closed) (Item 20).
- LEGAL20 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of the 15 listed on this page, 0 name the franchisor itself, 14 its parent, affiliates or predecessor, 1 an officer personally. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- MTY Franchising USA, Inc.
- Parent company
- MTY Franchising Inc. (MTY Canada)
- FDD Item 1, page 7 of the 2025 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- MTY Food Group, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 7 of the 2025 FDD
- Predecessor
- Manchu WOK Franchising USA Inc. (MWF); Manchu WOK (USA), Inc. (MWUSA)
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- Chief Executive Officer
- Eric Lefebvre
- CEO experience
- 14 yrs
- Years in role or industry
- Incorporated in
- TN
- HQ
- 9311 East Via de Ventura, Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
- Auditor
- PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Montreal, Canada
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $580.3M
- vs $472.1M prior year
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 7
26 other brands on this site name MTY Food Group, Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
- Barrio QueenC
- BlimpieD
- Chicken Strips and DipsD
- Cold Stone CreameryC
- Extreme PitaF
- Famous Dave’sB
- Ginger Sushi + Poke ShopC
- GrabbagreenC
- Great SteakC
- Kahala Coffee TradersB
- La DiperieB
- Maui WowiD
- Mucho BurritoB
- NrGize Lifestyle CafeB
- Papa Murphy'sA
- PinkberryB
- Planet SmoothieC
- Samurai Sam’s Teriyaki GrillB
- Sauce Pizza / WineD
- Surf City SqueezeD
- TacoTimeC
- Thai ExpressD
- Village InnD
- Wetzel’s PretzelsA
- +2 more
Portfolio: MTY Food Group
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2025 FDD). Spelling variants of the same group may be listed apart; a brand is never grouped with an owner its filing does not name.
Overview
About
- CEO
- Eric Lefebvre
- Headquarters
- AZ
- Founded
- 2015
- FDD year
- 2025
- States available
- 11
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 35% above the typical quick-service restaurants franchise.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7
Full Item 7 breakdown18 line items
Initial investment breakdown
| Line item | Low | High | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Franchise Fee | $30K | $30K | |
| Leasehold Improvements and Design Costs incl. signagenot refundable | $220K | $340K | |
| Equipment, Fixtures, and Furnishingsnot refundable | $89K | $126K | |
| POS System & Installationnot refundable | $4K | $10K | |
| Construction Depositnot refundable | $30K | $30K | |
| Development Construction Feenot refundable | $3K | $15K | |
| Lease Administration Feenot refundable | $8K | $8K | |
| Security Depositnot refundable | $15K | $75K | |
| Sublease Feenot refundable | $500 | $3K | |
| Rentnot refundable | $15K | $75K | |
| Nonfood, Inventory and Suppliesnot refundable | $15K | $20K | |
| Initial Food, Inventory and Other Costsnot refundable | $8K | $10K | |
| Grand Opening, Marketing and Promotion Feenot refundable | $10K | $10K | |
| Initial Training Expensesnot refundable | $6K | $8K | |
| Architect Feesnot refundable | $18K | $25K | |
| Business License, and Permitsnot refundable | $150 | $500 | |
| Additional Funds (incl. insurance and Initial phase of 3 months)not refundable | $15K | $30K | |
| Digital Menu Systemnot refundable | $4K | $6K | |
| Total initial investment | $490K | $821K |
Line items extracted from FDD Item 7. Ranges reflect the franchisor's stated low and high per line. Total is the sum of line-item lows / highs — actual costs may fall outside this range depending on market and build-out scope.
Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate
The Vitals
- Total investment
- $490K – $821K
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $15K – $30K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $30K – $30K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 7.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 1.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 8.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 7.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 1.0% of gross sales |
| Training fee | $6K |
| Transfer fee | $10K |
| Renewal fee | $15K |
| Inventory (initial) | $8K – $10K |
| Total fee load | 8.0% of rev |
What do units actually make?
Average unit sales run 94% above the quick-service restaurants norm.
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 19
Single-unit · not modelled
Returns at a glance
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit, and the operating costs that turn one into the other are in no filing. We publish no modelled return for Manchu WOK until someone supplies them — yours, in the models below.
—
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
Total invested capital · disclosed
$678K
Item 7 initial investment plus working capital, as filed — the one figure here that needs no assumption.
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
What one unit earns on your invested capital
Model A · Single-Unit Return
Computes unlevered return on invested capital (ROIC) for a single franchise unit, read against the 30–60% reference band · Yale SOM, Post-MBA Path Exhibit 2 (2023). Below that band a passive index fund likely outperforms; above it the franchisor has pricing power you're subsidizing.
Note: Item 19 revenue is what the franchisor discloses, and it is the top line only — gross sales are not profit. No FDD discloses the operating costs that turn one into the other, so those fields start empty and nothing is modelled until you supply them from your own lease quote, labor market and build-out budget.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one Manchu WOK unit return on the cash you put in?
Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Unlevered ROIC · per unit
Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.
—
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
What 25 units return when you use SBA financing
Model B · Return on Equity: Debt-Financed Acquisition
Models a 25-unit portfolio acquisition financed with an SBA 7(a) loan. Shows equity IRR (your return on cash invested), DSCR (how safely the cash flow covers debt service), and the capital stack (SBA + seller + equity breakdown).
This is the “search fund” or “entrepreneurship through acquisition” scenario: you buy an existing multi-unit operator, use leverage to amplify returns, and either operate or hire management. The 25-unit size is the typical minimum for an SBA-backed franchise portfolio acquisition to pencil as a full-time income.
What “return on equity” means here: if you put in $500K of your own cash and the business generates enough EBITDA to pay down debt and grow, your equity IRR is the annual return on that $500K, including the value created when you eventually sell. Target IRR for a search fund is typically 25–35%.
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
A 25-unit return is built on a per-unit EBITDA. Fill in the operating costs in Model A above and this model runs on that figure, or take the whole scenario to the full ROI workbench, where the portfolio and LBO models accept your own per-unit economics directly.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2025 FDD
Financial Performance
- Avg gross sales
- $1.9M
- Per unit, per year
- Median gross sales
- $1.1M
Gross sales are revenue before expenses — not profit. Actual owner earnings depend on rent, labor, royalties, marketing fees, and debt service.
- Item 19 type
- gross sales
- Sample size
- 15 outlets
- vs category median 19
- Reporting year
- 2024
- Fiscal year the figures cover
- Source filing
- FDD 2025
- Disclosed in the 2025 filing, covering 2024
- Transparency
- 4 / 10
- vs category median 4 / 10 · typical
Compared against 781 Quick-Service Restaurants brands
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Unit economics
Average unit generates $1.9M/year in gross sales. Median is $1.1M — top performers pull the average up, so a typical unit earns less. Revenue-to-investment ratio: 2.9x.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 8.0% (near the Quick-Service Restaurants median).
Disclosure
Transparency score 4/10 — this franchisor discloses detailed breakdowns (quartiles, segments, or cohort data). Buyers can model unit economics with higher confidence.
Operator retention
System contracting at -16.7% CAGR over 3 years. Investigate whether closures are franchisor-driven consolidation or franchisee exits.
Source: FDD Item 19 financial performance representations and publicly filed FDD data. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Verify all figures with the franchisor and current franchisees before making any investment decision.
vs Quick-Service Restaurants medians
How Manchu WOK Compares
Category median of published Quick-Service Restaurants brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 15
- Opened
- 1
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 1
- Terminated
- 0
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 0
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 6.7%
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- -16.7%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- -16.7%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 0
- Not renewed
- 0
- Transferred
- 0
- Reacquired
- 0
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 0
- 0.00 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 0
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
- Ceased ops
- 6.7%
- Units that stopped operating
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 4 states with active franchisees
The Territory Map
Derived from franchisee contact records. Shows states with at least one current operator. Not where the franchisor is registered to sell new units (that data is re-extracting in a future refresh).
States derived from franchisee contact records (FDD Item 20). Shows states with at least one current operator on file. Full state registration data (Item 12) will appear on a future FDD refresh.
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
5 current owners across 4 states.
- CA 2
- AL 1
- NY 1
- TX 1
Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA loan disclosures. This brand has only 1 7(a) loan on file; statistical reliability is limited below 10 loans.
- Total loans
- 1
- Loan volume
- $275K
- Median loan
- $275K
- average
- Charge-off rate
- Under 10 loans (1)
- Insufficient SBA coverage: 1 loan, rate hidden below 10
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- Under 10 loans (1)
- 5-yr charge-off
- Under 10 loans (1)
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 1
- Defaults
- N/A
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
What could kill this investment?
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (plaintiff).
All litigation involves affiliates and predecessors (Extreme Pita, Kahala Franchising, Famous Dave's, Wetzel's Pretzels, Papa Murphy's, BF Acquisition/Triune, SweetFrog, Blimpie, Maui Wowi). No active litigation directly naming MTY Franchising USA/Manchu Wok as defendant. Two FY2024 suits filed by Kahala Franchising and Cold Stone Leasing as plaintiff.
Largest disclosed settlement: $585,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Montreal, Canada
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Item 19 reports average and median annual gross sales for all 15 franchised Manchu Wok stores in the US that were existing outlets open the full fiscal year (Dec 1, 2023-Nov 30, 2024). Gross sales = total revenue from sales of goods/services less sales tax, discounts, allowances and returns. Prepared from weekly franchisee sales reports; not audited by franchisor. 8 of 15 stores (53%) met or exceeded both the average and median. Franchisor-level audited revenue figures are consolidated MTY Franchising USA, Inc. amounts (in thousands), not Manchu Wok brand-specific.
ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results — the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
- Franchisor sells you products: Yes
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: No
Score breakdown · what drove the 50 / 100 verdict
- 01MINOROnly 15 units with unknown/stagnant growth trajectory suggests system contraction or stability crisis
- 02HIGH21 disclosed litigation actions involving predecessors/affiliates reveal pattern of breach of contract and misrepresentation claims
- 03MEDNet income not disclosed despite $1.89M average revenue — likely unprofitable unit economics or hidden losses
- 04MINORNo protected territory exposes franchisees to direct competition from other Manchu WOK locations and company-owned stores
- 05MINORHigh initial investment ($490K-$821K) paired with 7% royalty on gross (not net) creates unsustainable payback period
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail20 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Concluded (12)
Pretzelsdallas1, Inc. v. Wetzel’s Pretzels, L.L.C.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Wetzel’s Pretzels, L.L.C. · filed 2019 · American Arbitration Association (Los Angeles, California) · 01-19-0002-9326
“Pretzelsdallas1, Inc. v. Wetzel’s Pretzels, L.L.C.; Los Angeles, California; AAA Case No.01-19- 0002-9326. On or about July 19, 2017, we entered into a franchise agreement with Pretzelsdallas1, Inc. (then known as Triple Scoops, Inc.). On or about September 11, 2019, Pretzelsdallas1, Inc., (“Claimant/Counter Respondent”) a franchisee, filed a demand for arbitration”Page 28 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On September 24, 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, in which a mutual release of all claims was agreed to, and Respondent/Counter Claimant paid Claimant/Counter Respondent the sum of $125,000. The matter was subsequently dismissed with prejudice.”
Desert Ribs, L.L.C., Famous Gracie, L.L.C., Famous Freddie, L.L.C., Famous George, L.L.C. and Famous Charlie, L.L.C. v. Famous Dave’s of America, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. · filed 2016-03-14 · American Arbitration Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota · 01 16 0000 8549
“Desert Ribs, L.L.C., Famous Gracie, L.L.C., Famous Freddie, L.L.C., Famous George, L.L.C. and Famous Charlie, L.L.C. v. Famous Dave’s of America, Inc., American Arbitration Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Case No. 01 16 0000 8549. On March 14, 2016, the franchisees for the Famous Dave’s® Restaurants in Chandler, Peoria, Mesa and Gilbert, Arizona (“Claimants”)”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Upon the dismissal of the MFA claims, Claimants voluntarily dismissed their remaining claims against Famous Dave’s and entered into a confidential settlement agreement and mutual release (the “Settlement Agreement”), dated August 22, 2016, with Famous Dave’s.”
SFF, L.L.C. v. Carmel Village Yogurt Company L.L.C.
dismissedBrought against a franchisee · SFF, L.L.C. · filed 2016-08-29 · City of Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court · CL16-3927
“SFF, L.L.C. v. Carmel Village Yogurt Company L.L.C.; City of Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court; Case No. CL16-3927. On August 29, 2016, SFF, L.L.C. (“Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against three sweetFrog franchisee entities, Carmel Village Yogurt Company L.L.C. (“Defendant Carmel YC”),”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Plaintiff paid Defendant Carmel YC $25,000; (iii) Plaintiff reinstated Defendant Huntersville YC’s and Defendant Mooresville YC’s terminated franchise agreements; and (iv) Plaintiff granted Defendant Anto the right to develop a new sweetFrog shop at a mutually acceptable location on or before November 8, 2018. The case was dismissed with prejudice on December 15, 2016.”
Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. v. Allan Gantes; John Gantes; M Mart 1, L.L.C.; Kurt Schneiter; Shoreline FD Investors, L.L.C.; SR El Centro FD, Inc. SR Long Beach FD, Inc.; SR Palmdale FD, Inc.; SR Restaurant Holdings Group, Inc.; SR Simi Valley FD, Inc.; SR Tracey FD, Inc.
settledBrought against a franchisee · Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. · filed 2015-07-24 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division · BC589329
“Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. v. Allan Gantes; John Gantes; M Mart 1, L.L.C.; Kurt Schneiter; Shoreline FD Investors, L.L.C.; SR El Centro FD, Inc. SR Long Beach FD, Inc.; SR Palmdale FD, Inc.; SR Restaurant Holdings Group, Inc.; SR Simi Valley FD, Inc.; SR Tracey FD, Inc.; Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division, Case No. BC589329.”Page 27 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On September 29, 2018, the parties agreed to enter into a confidential settlement agreement and a mutual release of claims (the “El Centro Settlement Agreement”), which contained the following material terms: (i) SR Defendants received $75,000 towards the payment of their attorney’s fees”
KOHO, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. · filed 2015 · Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles · BC572565
“KOHO, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.; Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles; Case No.: BC572565. On or about February 17, 2015, Koho, Inc. (“Koho”) filed a Complaint against Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. (“Kahala”) alleging: (i) breach of contract; (ii) unjust enrichment; and (iii) declaratory relief.”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“territory for the sum of $75,000 and forgave the remaining damages owed in the amount of $130,000.” (page 24)
Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., EP Development, Inc., and Feisal Ramjee
settledBrought by a franchisee · The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc. (heading: 'predecessor in interest to MTY Franchising USA, Inc.'; Item 1 says MTY Franchising USA was formerly known by that name) · filed 2015-06-22 · Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County · 15-2-15120-7
“Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., EP Development, Inc., and Feisal Ramjee ; Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, Case No. 15-2-15120-7. On June 22, 2015, Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint against The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The parties entered into a settlement agreement on March 11, 2016, in which Defendants paid Plaintiffs the sum of $20,000. The matter was dismissed on March 16, 2016.” (page 23)
Rob & Bud’s Pizza, L.L.C. v. Papa Murphy’s International, Inc. and Papa Murphy’s International, L.L.C.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Papa Murphy’s International, L.L.C. · filed 2015-04-17 · United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (as printed) · 5:15-cv-05090-TLB
“Rob & Bud’s Pizza, L.L.C. v. Papa Murphy’s International, Inc. and Papa Murphy’s International, L.L.C.; United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Case No. 5:15-cv- 05090-TLB. In spring 2015, Papa Murphy’s sent a notice of default to plaintiff for alleged defaults under the plaintiff’s franchise agreements.”Page 30 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The case was dismissed with prejudice as part of a settlement with plaintiff in this case and the LMP case under which Papa Murphy’s purchased plaintiff’s nine Papa Murphy’s stores at an agreed upon value of the stores’ assets plus $500,000.”
DTD Pizza LLC, Brian Watson, Alton Spears, LMP Enterprises LLC, ... and Papa's of Tennessee, LLC. v. Papa Murphy’s International LLC, et al. (Case No. 14-2-00904-0) and Mitch and Kristen Brink, Brink Holdings Inc., ... and Red Rust, LLC, v. Papa Murphy’s International LLC, et al. (Case No. 14-2-0174
settledBrought by a franchisee · Papa Murphy’s International, L.L.C. (with related Papa Murphy's entities, directors and executives) · filed 2014 · Washington Superior Court, Clark County · 14-2-00904-0 (consolidated; the second action was 14-2-01743-3)
“Washington Superior Court, Clark County, Case No. 14-2-01743-3. These two related actions were commenced in April 2014 and June 2014, respectively, by separate groups of current and former franchisees against us, certain members of our board of managers and executive team, and others in Washington Superior Court (Clark County), alleging misrepresentations involving financial performance”Page 29 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Each of the plaintiff groups =entered into settlements with Papa Murphy’s in which they dismissed all of their claims against defendants with prejudice and the action was dismissed in June 2020.”
Texas Nrgize #1, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. and Kahala Holdings, L.L.C.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. and Kahala Holdings, L.L.C. · filed 2014 · 67th Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas; removed to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas; transferred to U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division · 067-272652-14; 4:14-cv-544-Y; CV15-0337 PHX DGC
“Texas Nrgize #1, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. and Kahala Holdings, L.L.C.; 67th Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas; Civil Action No.: 067-272652-14 subsequently removed to United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; Case No.: 4:14-cv-544-Y. On or about June 18, 2014, Texas Nrgize #1, Inc., an Nrgize franchisee (“Plaintiff”), filed a Petition”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In December 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement in which Defendant paid Plaintiff the sum of $35,000. The parties filed a Stipulation to Dismiss With Prejudice on December 18, 2015.” (page 25)
Urquieta Sweet Frog, L.L.C. and Ana Urquieta v. SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C. d/b/a SFF, L.L.C.
settledBrought by a franchisee · SFF, L.L.C. (successor in interest to SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C.) · filed 2014-12-23 · American Arbitration Association · 01 14 0001 8086
“Urquieta Sweet Frog, L.L.C. and Ana Urquieta v. SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C. d/b/a SFF, L.L.C., American Arbitration Association; Case No. 01 14 0001 8086. On December 23, 2014, Urquieta Sweet Frog, L.L.C. and Ana Urquieta, a former sweetFrog franchisee and its owner (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed a Demand for Arbitration against SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C. (“Defendant”).”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“This matter was settled in December of 2015. Under the settlement, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiffs $300,000 and the parties executed mutual releases.”
Fresh Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Ledang Investment Group, L.L.C., Vincent Tienn Le, Ho Tien Le and Hue This Dang
settledBrought against a franchisee · Fresh Enterprises, L.L.C. (successor in interest to BF Acquisition, L.L.C.) · filed 2013-07-02 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara; arbitrated before the American Arbitration Association · 1-13-CV-257219; AAA 72-20-1400-0126
“Fresh Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Ledang Investment Group, L.L.C., Vincent Tienn Le, Ho Tien Le and Hue This Dang Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-13- CV-257219. On July 2, 2013, Fresh Enterprises, L.L.C., as successor-in-interest to Baja Fresh Westlake Village, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint against Ledang Investment Group, L.L.C.;”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On February 2, 2015, the Arbitrator issued an award in favor of Cross Claimants Ledang in the amount of $660,620.84. The parties entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement on July 20, 2015, under which Counter Defendants paid the Cross Claimants Ledang the sum of $585,000 and the matter was dismissed with prejudice.”
State of Maryland Determination
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Triune, LLC (predecessor of affiliate BF Acquisition Holdings, L.L.C.) · filed 2012 · Office of the Attorney General of Maryland (Maryland franchise regulator) · 2012-0073
“State of Maryland Determination; Case Number 2012-0073. In February 2012, the State of Maryland alleged that during the period January 1, 2009 to November 26, 2009, Triune, LLC (“Triune”): (i) did not retain signed acknowledgements of receipt reflecting the dates that its Franchise Disclosure Document was delivered to certain Maryland residents and non-residents;”Page 32 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Without admitting or denying the allegations, in September 2012, Triune voluntarily entered into a Consent Order with the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland and agreed to: (i) not violate the Maryland Law in the future; (ii) pay the Office of the Attorney General the sum of $50,000 as a civil penalty;”
Status not stated in the filing (2)
Cold Stone Creamery Leasing Company, Inc. v. JRF, Inc.
Brought against a franchisee · Cold Stone Creamery Leasing Company, Inc. · Iowa District Court for Dallas County · SCSC050015
“Suit for Forcible Entry and Detainer Cold Stone Creamery Leasing Company, Inc. v. JRF, Inc.; Iowa District Court for Dallas County; Case No.: SCSC050015.”Page 33 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. All About Food, Inc. and Chu Yup Lee a/k/a Michale Lee
Brought against a franchisee · Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. · Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Lake County, Illinois · 2024LA00000001
“Lawsuits Filed by Franchisor Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. Against Franchisees During Fiscal Year December 1, 2023 through November 30, 2024 Suit for Breach of Contract Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. All About Food, Inc. and Chu Yup Lee a/k/a Michale Lee; In the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Lake County, Illinois; Case No.: 2024LA00000001.”Page 33 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)
Concluded (1)
In re: Restaurants Acquisition I, L.L.C. (Giuliano vs. W. Craig Barber et. al.
settledThird-party plaintiff · W. Craig Barber (printed as 'our Chief Executive Officer') and Robert Langford ('our Chief Concept Officer – Family Restaurant Division'); section heading: VI BrandCo, L.L.C. · filed 2017 · United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware · 15-12406 (KG)
“In re: Restaurants Acquisition I, L.L.C. (Giuliano vs. W. Craig Barber et. al. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on December 2, 2015 (Case No. 15-12406 (KG)). On December 1, 2017, the Chapter 7 trustee in the Restaurants Acquisition I, L.L.C. (“RAI”) bankruptcy proceeding filed suit in the United States Bankruptcy Court”Page 28 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On March 6, 2019, Barber and Langford each settled with the Chapter 7 trustee by each agreeing to pay to the trustee and estate separate payments totaling $150,000 each over a three-year period.”
This list shows 15 of the 20 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.
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.
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 8.0% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 10 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 5 years |
| Territory type | No territory protection |
| Protected territory | No |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Restricted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Required |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 1 year |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 3 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| RoFR response window | 30 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Jury trial waiver | Yes |
| Governing law | Arizona |
| Litigation count | 20 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
All litigation involves affiliates and predecessors (Extreme Pita, Kahala Franchising, Famous Dave's, Wetzel's Pretzels, Papa Murphy's, BF Acquisition/Triune, SweetFrog, Blimpie, Maui Wowi). No active litigation directly naming MTY Franchising USA/Manchu Wok as defendant. Two FY2024 suits filed by Kahala Franchising and Cold Stone Leasing as plaintiff.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 40 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 120 hrs
- Training location
- Training restaurant, KTEC (Kahala Training & Education Center) in Scottsdale, AZ, virtually, or other designated location
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 6 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- Franchisee selects; franchisor must approve
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- Vivonet Point of Sale (POS)
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: Vivonet Point of Sale (POS)
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
5 owners to call
Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to open a Manchu WOK franchise?
The total investment to open a Manchu WOK franchise ranges from $490K – $821K, with an initial franchise fee of $30K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do Manchu WOK franchise owners earn?
According to Item 19 of the Manchu WOK FDD, the average gross sales per unit is $1.9M. The median is $1.1M. Note: this is gross revenue, not profit. Actual owner earnings vary based on location, operating costs, and management.
Who owns Manchu WOK?
Manchu WOK is franchised by MTY Franchising USA, Inc.. Its parent company is MTY Franchising Inc. (MTY Canada). The ultimate parent named in the FDD is MTY Food Group, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Manchu WOK FDD?
The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the Manchu WOK FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Manchu WOK's franchise failure rate?
SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for Manchu WOK (fewer than 10 loans on file). Charge-off rates are one way to gauge franchise risk, but not all franchise loans go through the SBA program. We recommend reviewing turnover and closure data in the FDD and speaking with current franchisees.
How many Manchu WOK franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Manchu WOK has 15 total units in the United States, including 15 franchised units and 0 company-owned units. 1 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Manchu WOK a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Manchu WOK as a B-grade franchise with a verdict score of 50 out of 100 (higher is better). The grade is a deterministic score built from six weighted dimensions — financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency — then calibrated against SBA loan charge-off rates and FDD age. Transparency is one of the six, so a filing that discloses less scores lower on that dimension than one that discloses more. Our rating is based solely on publicly available FDD and government data; we recommend speaking with current franchisees before making any investment decision. This is not investment advice.
Data sourced from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) FOIA records. Not financial advice.
For franchisors
Are you the franchisor?
If you represent Manchu WOK, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Quick-Service Restaurants franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Quick-Service Restaurants category
Data extracted from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) loan disclosures (FOIA). This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.