FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing
Mr. Handyman litigation history
What Mr. Handyman disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2026 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)
- Disclosed
- Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer
- Filing year
- 2026
- Disclosures cover the prior ten years
Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 3: litigation
2 cases filed by franchisor in 2025 in McLennan County, TX: (1) suit against franchisee Robert Alexander Coughlin re marketing vendor dispute; (2) joint suit with Mr. Electric SPV LLC against Anbramar Consumer Enterprise Corp et al re marketing obligations. One affiliate (Window Genie predecessor) administrative consent order disclosed but does not involve the franchisor.
Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed · 1 pending listed
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (1)
Mr. Handyman SPV LLC v. Robert Alexander Coughlin
pendingBrought against a franchisee · filed 2025-09-17 · District Court for the 170th Judicial District, McLennan County, Texas · 2025-2825-4
“… Case No. 2025-2825-4, filed September 17, 2025, in the District Court for the 170th Judicial District in McLennan County, Texas.”Page 21 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Status not stated in the filing (1)
Mr. Electric SPV LLC and Mr. Handyman SPV LLC v. Anbramar Consumer Enterprise Corp, Ramarbna Consumer Enterprise Inc., and Scott Vincent DeThomas
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-09-17 · District Court for the 170th Judicial District, McLennan County, Texas · 2025-2830-4
“Mr. Electric SPV LLC and Mr. Handyman SPV LLC v. Anbramar Consumer Enterprise Corp, Ramarbna”Page 21 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor
Concluded (1)
The Commissioner of Business Oversight of the State of California v. FOR Franchising LLC d/b/a Window Genie and Richard Nonelle
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · FOR Franchising LLC (a predecessor to our affiliate Window Genie) · filed 2017-11-14 · California Department of Business Oversight
“The Commissioner of Business Oversight of the State of California v. FOR Franchising LLC d/b/a Window Genie and Richard Nonelle.”Page 22 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “FOR would pay an administrative penalty in the total amount of $5,000 (which amount FOR paid) and (c) within 90 days of the date of the Consent Order, Mr. Nonelle and all persons employed by FOR who assist in preparing franchise registrations or who assist in franchise selling would attend remedial education of eight hours of franchise law training courses per person (which requirement has been completed).”
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.
Disclosed in the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 4: bankruptcy
KKR portfolio company bankruptcies disclosed: Marelli Holdings (2025), The Collected Group LLC (2021, emerged), Envision Healthcare (2023, emerged), Genesis Care Pty Limited (2023, emerged), IPI Legacy Liquidation Co. (2023, emerged), Cafe Coffee Day (India insolvency, 2024). None involve the franchisor directly.
Disclosure signals that moved the score
How this shows up in the verdict
- Active litigation against franchisees raises concerns about franchisor-franchisee relationship and potential disputes over marketing obligations
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?