FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
Nothing Bundt Cakes litigation history
What Nothing Bundt Cakes 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
- 4
- 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
NBC predecessor Nothing Bundt Franchising LLC entered consent order with Maryland Securities Commissioner (2021) for selling franchise without registration. Three affiliate actions (Arby's no-poach settlement, Dunkin no-poach settlement, Dunkin NY data breach settlement) also disclosed but do not involve the franchisor directly.
Item 3 (litigation) · 4 matters disclosed
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Concluded (1)
In the Matter of Nothing Bundt Franchising, LLC, Securities Commissioner of Maryland
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2021-0013
“… Case No. 2021-0013. On March 4, 2021, NBC entered into a consent order with the Maryland Securities Commissioner on account of an October 2020 franchise sale in Maryland when NBC was not effectively registered to sell franchises.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In resolving the matter, NBC agreed to offer the franchisee the right to rescind its franchise agreement and to immediately and permanently cease and desist from the offer or sale of franchises in violation of the Maryland Franchise law.”
Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor
Concluded (3)
New York v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Dunkin Brands, Inc. ("DBI"), named in the filing as "our affiliate" · 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.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under the 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.”
The People of the State of California v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. ("ARG"), named in the filing as "our affiliate" · 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”Page 21 of the 2025 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”
The People of the State of California v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Dunkin Brands, Inc. ("DBI"), named in the filing as "our affiliate" · 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”Page 21 of the 2025 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.” (page 22)
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
- Parent company litigation pattern across multiple brands (Arby's, Dunkin') suggests systemic governance issues with no-poaching and data security
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?