Moe’s Southwest Grill Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026

The franchisor

Concluded (2)

• Moe’s Franchisor SPV LLC v. Taylor Investment Partners II, LLC; TIP II-Ansley, LLC and TIP II-Suburban, LLC

  settled

  Brought against a franchisee · filed 2024-03-12 · United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia · Civil Action File No. 1:24-cv-1096-SCJ

  “Moe’s Franchisor SPV LLC v. Taylor Investment Partners II, LLC; TIP II-Ansley, LLC and TIP II-Suburban, LLC, United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Civil Action File No. 1:24-cv-1096-SCJ. On March 12, 2024, we filed a lawsuit against the TIP Parties for federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, breach of contract, injunctive relief, monetary damages, and”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on August 26, 2024, and the appeals were withdrawn and the parties agreed to dismiss the following related action:”

• Taylor Investment Partners II, LLC; TIP II-Ansley, LLC; and TIP II-Suburban, LLC v. Moe’s Franchisor SPV LLC; Moe’s Franchisor LLC; and GoTo Foods LLC

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2024-03-01 · Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia · Civil Action File No. 24CV002585

  “Taylor Investment Partners II, LLC; TIP II-Ansley, LLC; and TIP II-Suburban, LLC v. Moe’s Franchisor SPV LLC; Moe’s Franchisor LLC; and GoTo Foods LLC, Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, Civil Action File No. 24CV002585. On March 1, 2024, Taylor Investment Partners II, LLC (“TIP”), a Moe’s franchisee, and two related operating entities (collectively, the “TIP Parties”) filed a lawsuit”Page 25 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“On August 23, 2024, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which (i) the parties agreed to dismiss all claims and counterclaims, (ii) an affiliate of Moe’s agreed to purchase TIP’s restaurant and all of its operating assets for $1,800,000” (page 26)

Parent, affiliates and predecessor

Concluded (5)

• New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.

  concluded

  Government or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (DBI) · filed 2019-09-26 · N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County · 451787/2019

  “New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County, Case No. 451787/2019, filed September 26, 2019). In this matter, the N.Y. Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a lawsuit against our affiliate, DBI, related to credential-stuffing cyberattacks during 2015 and 2018. The NYAG alleged that the cyber attackers used individuals’ credentials obtained from elsewhere on the Internet to”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“the NYAG entered into a consent agreement to resolve the State’s complaint. Under consent order, DBI agreed to pay $650,000 in penalties and costs, issue certain notices and other types of communications to New York customers, and maintain a comprehensive information security program through September 2026, including precautions and response measures for credential- stuffing attacks.” (page 28)

• The People of the State of California v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc.

  settled

  Government or regulatory action · Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (ARG) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09397

  “The People of the State of California v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09397, filed March 19, 2019). On March 11, 2019, our affiliate, Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (“ARG”), entered into a settlement agreement with the states of California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“Under the settlement agreement, ARG paid no money but agreed (a) to remove the disputed provision from its franchise agreements (which it had already done); (b) not to enforce the disputed provision in existing agreements or to intervene in any action by the Attorneys General if a franchisee seeks to enforce the provision; (c) to seek amendments of the existing franchise agreements in the”

• The People of the State of California v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.

  settled

  Government or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (DBI) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09597

  “The People of the State of California v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09597, filed on March 19, 2019.) On March 14, 2019, our affiliate, Dunkin Brands, Inc. (“DBI”), entered into a settlement agreement with the Attorneys General of 13 states and jurisdictions concerning the inclusion of “no-poaching” provisions in Dunkin’ restaurant”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“The Attorney General of the State of California filed the above-reference lawsuit in order to place the settlement agreement in the public record, and the action was closed after the court approved the parties’ stipulation of judgment.”

• Moe’s Franchisor LLC v. Taylor Investment Partners, II, LLC; Tip II-Ansley, LLC; and Tip II-Suburban, LLC

  settled

  Brought against a franchisee · Moe’s Franchisor LLC (MFL), the franchisor at the time · filed 2016-12-06 · Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia · 2016-cv-283467

  “Moe’s Franchisor LLC v. Taylor Investment Partners, II, LLC; Tip II-Ansley, LLC; and Tip II- Suburban, LLC, Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, Case No. 2016-cv-283467. On December 6, 2016, MFL, which was the franchisor of Moe’s Southwest Grill® franchises at the time, filed a lawsuit against the TIP Parties to enforce the termination of defendants’ franchise agreements for two Restaurants”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“On March 8, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which (i) the parties agreed to dismiss all claims and counterclaims, (ii) MFL agreed to reinstate defendants’ franchise agreements (which we agreed to do on MFL’s behalf), (iii) the parties exchanged general releases of all claims against each other, and (iv) the parties agreed that the settlement would not be construed as an”

• In the Matter of Jimmy John’s Franchisor SPV LLC

  concluded

  Government or regulatory action · Jimmy John’s Franchisor SPV LLC · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2025-0122

  “In the Matter of Jimmy John’s Franchisor SPV LLC (Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2025-0122). On March 28, 2022, Jimmy John’s filed a Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) with the Maryland Securities Division as part of a notice of exemption from franchise registration. In this filing, Jimmy John’s listed the former franchisees but omitted the required contact information for the”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“the Maryland Securities Commissioner and Jimmy John’s entered into a Consent Order on June 9, 2025. Under the terms of the Consent Order, Jimmy John’s agreed to pay a $30,000 civil monetary penalty, to permanently cease and desist from the offer or sale of franchises in violation of the Maryland Franchise Law, and to disclose the existence of the Consent Order in future franchise disclosure”