FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Neighborhood Barre litigation history

What Neighborhood Barre 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: 16; 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

Neighborhood Barre Franchising itself has no direct litigation. Disclosed cases relate to CEO Paul Flick and affiliates (360 Painting, Window Gang, Rooterman, PSB): 5 pending actions, 5 prior civil settlements, 6 governmental consent orders/AVCs involving disclosure violations and regulatory actions in MD, IL, VA, CA, and WA.

Item 3 (litigation) · 16 matters disclosed · 5 pending listed

Litigation cases

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (5)

360 Painting, LLC v. Chshelokovskiy, et al.
pending
Brought by the franchisor · 360 Painting, LLC · filed 2025-05-07 · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia · 3:25-cv-00032
“… (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00032).”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Willett v. Window Gang, LLC and Paul Flick
pending
Brought by a franchisee · Window Gang, LLC and Paul Flick (our CEO) · filed 2025-05-29 · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia · 3:25-cv-00044
“… (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00044).”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Rooterman, LLC v. Klodian Belegu, et al.
pending
Brought by the franchisor · Rooterman, LLC (PSB subsidiary) · filed 2024-12-05 · U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · 1:24cv- 13015
“… (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:24cv- 13015). On December 5, 2024, PSB’s subsidiary Rooterman, LLC filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction against former franchisee Klodian”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Rooterman, LLC v. Klodian Belegu, et al. (arbitration)
pending
Brought by the franchisor · Rooterman, LLC (PSB subsidiary) · filed 2024-12-16 · American Arbitration Association, Boston Office · 012400090057
“Separate from the preliminary injunction matter, in Rooterman, LLC v. Klodian Belegu, et al. (American Arbitration Association, Boston Office, Case No. 012400090057), on December 16, 2024, PSB’s subsidiary”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
360 Painting, LLC v. Glenn A. Misiph et. al. / Glenn Misiph et. al. v. 360 Painting, LLC et. al.
pending
Brought by the franchisor · 360 Painting, LLC, Premium Service Brands, LLC and Paul Flick · filed 2022-09-27 · U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (claims moved from W.D. Va. No. 3:22-cv-00056-NKM) · 1:22-cv-11778-AK
“360 Painting, LLC v. Glenn A. Misiph et. al. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia, Case No. 3:22-cv-00056-NKM).”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (11)

In the Matter of 360 Painting, LLC, and Paul Flick
concluded
Government or regulatory action · 360 Painting, LLC and Paul Flick (our CEO) · filed 2022 · Securities Commissioner of Maryland (administrative proceeding) · 2022-0226
“… Administrative Proceeding Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2022-0226.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “... from the offer and sale of franchises in violation of the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law; (2) to pay to the Office of the Attorney General in conjunction with this Consent Order the sum of $50,000.00 as a civil monetary penalty; and (3) that the Consent Order is a disclosable order as described under the Maryland Franchise Law, and Item 3 of the NASAA Franchise Registration and Disclosure ...”
In the matter of determining whether there has been a violation of the Franchise Investment Protection Act of Washington by: 360 Painting, LLC (and Pro-Lift Doors Franchise, LLC)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · 360 Painting, LLC and Pro-Lift Doors Franchise, LLC · filed 2022-10-04 · State of Washington Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division · S-22-3399-22-CO01
“In the matter of determining whether there has been a violation of the Franchise Investment Protection Act of Washington by: 360 Painting, LLC, and In the matter of determining whether there has been a violation of the Franchise Investment Protection Act of”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
360 Painting, LLC v. The DeGregorio, LLC, et al.
settled
Brought by the franchisor · 360 Painting, LLC · filed 2021-08-27 · U.S. N.D. Ill., East. Div. · 1:21-cv-04577
“… (U.S. N.D. Ill., East. Div., Case # 1:21-cv-04577). Filing date: August 27, 2021. 360 Painting, LLC filed a Complaint against former franchisee Greg DeGregorio and several associated corporate entities based”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties entered into a settlement of all claims, with neither party admitting fault or liability, on December 24, 2021, pursuant to which 360 Painting paid $21,000.”
In The Matter of the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. 360 Painting, LLC, Pro-Lift Doors Franchise, LLC, Maid Right, LLC, Handyman Pro, LLC, Kitchen Wise, LLC, Renew Crew, LLC, Rubbish Works, LLC, and Paul Flick
concluded
Government or regulatory action · 360 Painting, LLC and PSB affiliates, Paul Flick (our CEO) · filed 2021 · Department of Financial Protection and Innovation of the State of California · 33649
“In The Matter of the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. 360 Painting, LLC, Pro-Lift Doors Franchise, LLC, Maid Right, LLC, Handyman Pro, LLC, Kitchen Wise, LLC, Renew Crew, LLC, Rubbish Works, LLC, and Paul Flick, an individual,”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “... of fact or conclusions of law, (1) to immediately and permanently cease and desist from the offer and sale of franchises in violation of the California Franchise Investment Law; (2) to pay penalties of $72,500 and costs of $10,500 to the Commissioner; (3) to disgorge all initial franchise fees paid by California franchisees to defendant 360 Painting, LLC and refrain from enforcing or collecting judgments ...”
Commonwealth of Virginia, ex. rel. State Corporation Commission v. 360 Painting, LLC
settled
Government or regulatory action · 360 Painting, LLC · filed 2020 · Virginia State Corporation Commission · SEC-2020-00055
“In the matter of Commonwealth of Virginia, ex. rel. State Corporation Commission v. 360 Painting, LLC, No. SEC-2020-00055, investigation by the Virginia State Corporation Commission.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On March 2, 2021, an agreed Settlement Order was entered by the State Corporation Commission’s Clerk’s Office under which 360 Painting agreed to pay $10,000 in monetary penalties, $1,000 to defray costs of investigation, and agreed not to violate the Act in the future.”
In the Matter of 360 Painting, LLC
concluded
Government or regulatory action · 360 Painting, LLC · filed 2020 · Illinois Attorney General · 20-AVC-F001
“… No. 20-AVC-F001, investigation by Illinois Attorney General’s Office. In January 2020, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office began an investigation of potential violations of the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act by 360”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On May 22, 2020, 360 Painting entered into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (“AVC”), under which 360 Painting agreed to offer affected franchisees the opportunity to rescind their franchise agreements, make a $6,000 payment to the state, disclose the AVC in its disclosure document, and comply with the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act in the future.” (page 19)
Deborah Carreno v. 360 Painting, LLC, et al.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · 360 Painting, LLC · filed 2019-11-22 · U.S. District Court, Southern District of California · 19cv2239-LAB-BGS
“… (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 19cv2239-LAB-BGS).”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties entered into a settlement of all claims in November 2021, pursuant to which 360 Painting agreed to pay Plaintiff $57,500.”
Dispatch Technologies, Inc. v. Premium Service Brands, LLC
settled
Brought by a third party · Premium Service Brands, LLC · filed 2019-03-29 · The Superior Court, Suffolk County, Trial Court of Massachusetts · 1984CV01003
“… (case #1984CV01003, The Superior Court, Suffolk County, Trial Court of Massachusetts, filed March 29, 2019).”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties settled on May 20, 2019 with Premium Service Brands, LLC agreeing to pay $190,000 to mutually terminate the contract and be able to pursue a new CRM vendor.”
YP, LLC d/b/a yellowpages.com, LLC v. 360 Painting, LLC
settled
Brought by a third party · 360 Painting, LLC · filed 2017-07-17 · Superior Court of Dekalb County, State of Georgia · 17CV7398
“… (case # 17CV7398, Superior Court of Dekalb County, State of Georgia, filed July 17, 2017).”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties settled all claims with 360 Painting, LLC agreeing to pay (via installments) $21,000 of the alleged $37,765.19 outstanding principal account balance due, and the lawsuits were mutually dismissed on August 27, 2018.”
MMG-360 LLC, et al. v. Paul Flick, Home Service Franchising, Inc., 360 Painting LLC, Maintenance Made Simple LLC, et al.
settled
360 Painting LLC and Paul Flick (our CEO) · filed 2011-04-06 · Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio · CV-11-752725
“MMG-360 LLC, et al. v. Paul Flick, Home Service Franchising, Inc., 360 Painting LLC, Maintenance Made Simple LLC, et al.”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
In the Matter of 360 Painting, LLC f.k.a. 360 Painting, Inc., and Paul Flick
concluded
Government or regulatory action · 360 Painting, LLC and Paul Flick (our CEO) · Securities Commissioner of Maryland (administrative proceeding) · 2015-0477
“… Administrative Proceeding Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2015-0477, as modified by Order Modifying Consent Order dated January 4, 2017.”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

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

Extensive litigation across parent company involving fraud allegations, breach of contract, and multi-state franchise registration violations affecting CEO and related brands

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