FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Midas litigation history

What Midas 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: 3; 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

Three concluded cases disclosed: (1) VieRican, LLC arbitration (franchise termination/royalty dispute) settled for $203,362.67; (2) People of California v. CRC Luxury Motors/Midas (franchise consumer fraud by franchisee), Midas paid $210,000 in penalties and restitution fund, fully satisfied; (3) 8435758 Canada Inc. v. Midas Canada (rescission/damages under Arthur Wishart Act), settled for Cdn $414,359

Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (2)

Midas International Corporation v. VieRican, LLC
concluded
Brought by the franchisor · filed 2020-01-31 · American Arbitration Association · 01-20-0000-4296
“… (Case No.:01-20-0000-4296, American Arbitration Association, filed January 31, 2020).”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On August 7, 2021, the parties settled this matter whereby Midas paid VieRican $203,362.67 and waived its rights to the equipment and” (page 15)
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it
- VieRican, LLC v. Midas International, LLC f/k/a Midas International Corporation
  concluded
  Brought by a franchisee · names the franchisor · filed 2019-11-13 · United States District Court for the District of Hawaii · 1:19-cv-620
  “The federal court case was titled VieRican, LLC v. Midas International, LLC f/k/a Midas International Corporation (Case No.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
  Outcome: “on December 12, 2020, the parties stipulated to dismiss the Hawaii Action and proceed solely with the” (page 15)
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.
The People of the State of California v. CRC Luxury Motors, LLC, Soscol Auto Repair d/b/a Midas/SpeeDee, Curtis Correll, and Midas International Corporation
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2018-11-13 · Superior Court for the State of California in and for the County of Napa · 18CV001526
“The People of the State of California v. CRC Luxury Motors, LLC, Soscol Auto Repair d/b/a Midas/SpeeDee, Curtis Correll, and Midas International Corporation (Case No.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “A Full Satisfaction of Judgment was filed on June 11, 2024 following the end of the five-year” (page 16)

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (1)

8435758 Canada Inc., Sheriza Mohamed, and Faizul Haniff v. Midas Canada Inc. and Midas Realty Corporation of Canada, Inc.
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · Midas Canada Inc. and Midas Realty Corporation of Canada, Inc. · filed 2015-12-08 · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · CV-15-542171
“8435758 Canada Inc., Sheriza Mohamed, and Faizul Haniff v. Midas Canada Inc. and Midas Realty Corporation of Canada, Inc. (Case No.”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Court dismissed the case on June 16”

One proceeding above is indented under the matter it belongs to because the filing narrates them inside it — an appeal, a consolidated case, a related arbitration. Each carries its own quote and page. They are counted with their matter, not as extra matters, so this list and the 3 Item 3 discloses agree.

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

Multiple litigation cases involving termination disputes, royalty conflicts, and regulatory violations indicate franchisor-franchisee friction and compliance issues

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