FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Onward Physical Therapy litigation history

What Onward Physical Therapy 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): None; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2026; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

1) Illinois AG: OPT voluntarily reported selling unregistered franchise in Illinois; accepted Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, paid $2,000 civil penalty (concluded Aug 2025). 2) Maryland Securities Commission: consent order for selling unregistered franchise; paid $5,000 civil penalty (pending completion). 3) Washington DFI: pending regulatory matter for selling two unregistered franchises.

Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (2)

Formal Action By the Attorney General of the State of Illinois Against Onward Physical Therapy, LLC
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2025-08-12 · Office of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois
“… On July 18, 2025, OPT voluntarily reported itself to the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois notifying the state that it came to OPT’s”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “This matter was concluded on August 12, 2025. Formal Action By the Maryland Securities Commissioner On July 18, 2025, OPT voluntarily reported itself to the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Maryland notifying the state that it came to OPT’s attention that it had unknowingly violated MD BUS REG § 14-214 by offering and selling an unregistered and non-exempt franchise in Maryland.”
Formal Action By the Washington Department of Financial Institutions
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2025-11-26 · Washington Department of Financial Institutions, Securities Division
“… On July 18, 2025, OPT voluntarily reported itself to the Department of Financial Institutions of the State of Washington notifying the state that it came to OPT’s attention that it had unknowingly violated RCW 19.100 by offering and selling two unregistered and non-exempt franchises in Washington.”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Status not stated in the filing (1)

Formal Action By the Maryland Securities Commissioner
Government or regulatory action · filed 2025-09-30 · Maryland Securities Commissioner (Securities Division)
“… On July 18, 2025, OPT voluntarily reported itself to the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Maryland notifying the state that it came to OPT’s attention that it had unknowingly violated MD BUS REG § 14-214 by offering and selling an unregistered and non-exempt franchise in Maryland.”Page 13 of the 2026 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

Active pending litigation in Washington state regarding unregistered franchise sales creates legal uncertainty and potential forced rescission liability

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 Onward Physical Therapy verdict Risk analysis on the brand page