FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2024 filing

Mossy Oak Properties litigation history

What Mossy Oak Properties disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2024 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: $85K; As stated in Item 3

Bankruptcy (Item 4): None; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2024; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2024 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

3 concluded actions: (1) MOP v. Agrirec Land Company (franchisor as plaintiff, breach of franchise agreements, settled 2017); (2) Kerry Johnson v. MOP et al (franchisee plaintiff, breach of area development agreement and other claims, settled $85,000 in 2013); (3) Richard Cross v. Haas et al (former employee/shareholder plaintiff, breach of employment agreement and fiduciary duty, settled 2009 with MOP purchasing Cross's stock)

Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (3)

Mossy Oak Properties, Inc. v. Agrirec Land Company, LLC and Thomas Rayburn, individually
settled
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2017-08-17 · Circuit Court of Clay County, Mississippi · 2017-0153K
“… In The Circuit Court of Clay County, Mississippi;”Page 10 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On October 27, 2017, the parties reached settlement as to all claims in the Lawsuit and, on November 2, 2017, MOP filed its Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal dismissing all of its claims in the Lawsuit against Agrirec and Rayburn.”
Kerry Johnson v. Mossy Oak Properties, Inc., Toxey D. Haas, III, Haas Outdoors, Inc. and Lannie Wallace
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2011-11-04 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division (removed from Circuit Court of Sumter County, Alabama) · 7:11-CV-4205 RDP; CV 2011-900057
“… U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division.”Page 10 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In August 2013, pursuant to a Confidential Settlement Agreement, Mossy Oak Property paid Johnson the sum of $85,000. All parties released each other of all claims and all cases were dismissed with prejudice.” (page 11)
Richard Cross v. Toxey D. Haas, III, C. David “Chris” Hawley, Mossy Oak Properties, Inc. and HAAS Outdoors, Inc.
settled
Brought by a third party · filed 2008-12-29 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division (removed from Circuit Court of Sumter County, Alabama) · 7:09-CV-00331 LSC; CV 2008-900067
“… U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division.”Page 11 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Pursuant to this Agreement, Mossy Oak Properties purchased Mr. Cross’s stock and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on July 2, 2009.”

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

Three litigation cases including two against franchisor by former franchisee and shareholder suggest operational/contractual disputes and governance 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 Mossy Oak Properties verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls