B55/100FDD 2025
Nick and Moes — Litigation & Risk
Food & Beverage - Quick Service · FDD Items 3, 4 & 5
Lower Risk
No litigation cases disclosed in FDD Items 3 and 4.
Source: FDD Items 3–5
FDD Items 3 & 4
Litigation Metrics
Cases disclosed
0
Total from FDD Items 3 and 4
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
—
Franchisor or officer bankruptcy
Overall risk score
55 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite
Rating
MODERATE
STRONG / MODERATE / CAUTION / AVOID
FDD Items 5, 6 & 17 — what you give up
Contract Risk Indicators
Mandatory arbitration
Required
Disputes resolved outside court — limits your legal options
Jury trial waiver
Waived
You give up the right to a jury trial
Non-compete
2 yrs
Post-termination restriction on similar businesses
Franchisor can compete
Yes
Franchisor can open competing locations in or near your territory
Right of first refusal
Yes
Franchisor can match any purchase offer when you try to sell
Governing law
Florida
State whose law governs disputes — relevant if you're not based there
What drove the 55/100 rating
Risk Score Breakdown
- 01MEDOnly 6 units system-wide suggests extremely limited track record and viability data for franchisees to validate
- 02MEDNet income not disclosed in FDD Item 19 prevents assessment of actual profitability and return on investment
- 03MINORWide investment range ($253.5K–$3.175M) indicates highly variable unit economics with unclear cost drivers and scalability
- 04HIGHGoing Concern = False status raises questions about franchisor financial stability and long-term support
- 05MINORRoyalty escalation (5% to 6%) combined with no profitability data creates unknown cash flow impact by Year 2
- 06HIGHNo disclosed litigation but micro-system size limits ability to identify historical franchisee disputes or failures
Severity inferred from FDD text — not a regulatory or legal classification
Litigation data from FDD Items 3, 4, and 5. SBA data from public 7(a) FOIA records (FY2020–present). Not legal advice — consult a franchise attorney before signing any franchise agreement.