FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Papa Murphy's litigation history

What Papa Murphy's 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: 9; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: None stated

Bankruptcy (Item 4): Disclosed · an officer; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2026; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

Multiple settled franchisee class-type actions (WFIPA claims re Item 19 representations) resolved 2014-2020 with payments ranging $10,000-$4,000,000 per group and several store buybacks; a declaratory judgment/tortious interference suit resolved via store purchase; and several state regulatory consent orders/settlements (Maryland, Virginia, New York) against MTY-affiliated predecessor brands (Triune/Blimpie/Maui Wowi/SweetFrog) for unregistered franchise sales or disclosure violations, with penalties from $2,500 to $50,000.

Item 3 (litigation) · 9 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (2)

Rob & Bud’s Pizza, LLC v. Papa Murphy’s International, Inc., et al.
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2015-04-17 · United States District Court for the Western District of Washington · 5:15-cv-05090-TLB
“… (United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Case No.”Page 23 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case has been dismissed with prejudice as part of a settlement with plaintiff in this case and the LMP case under which Papa Murphy’s purchased”
DTD Pizza, LLC, et al. v. Papa Murphy’s International LLC, et al.
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2014 · Washington Superior Court (Clark County) · 14-2-00904-0
“… (Washington Superior Court (Clark County)”Page 22 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “dismissed all of their claims against defendants with prejudice and the action was dismissed in June” (page 23)
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it
- Mitch and Kristen Brink, Brink Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Papa Murphy’s International LLC, et al.
  concluded
  names the franchisor · filed 2014 · Washington Superior Court (Clark County) · 14-2-01743-3
  “… (Washington Superior Court (Clark County), Case No.”Page 22 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
  Outcome: “These two actions were consolidated in September 2014 under Case Number 14-2-00904-0.”
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (7)

Purav Enterprises, LLC, Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., EP Development, Inc., and Feisal Ramjee
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc. · filed 2015-06-22 · Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County · 15-2-15120-7
“… (Superior Court of the State of Washington for”Page 23 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties entered into a settlement agreement on March 11, 2016, in which Defendants paid Plaintiffs the sum of $20,000. The matter was dismissed on March 16, 2016.”
In the Matter of SweetFrog Enterprises, LLC, fka Imagination Enterprises, Inc., dba Sweet Frog, Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland
concluded
Government or regulatory action · SweetFrog Enterprises, LLC · filed 2012-08-29 · Securities Commissioner of Maryland (consent order) · 2012-0055
“… (Case No. 2012-0055).”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On August 29, 2012, the Commissioner and SFE agreed to enter into a consent order whereby SFE, without admitting or denying any violations of the law, agreed to: (i)”
State of Maryland Determination
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Triune, LLC · filed 2012 · Office of the Attorney General of Maryland (Consent Order) · 2012-0073
“… (Case No. 2012-0073) In February 2012, the State of Maryland alleged that during the period January 1, 2009 to November 26, 2009 Triune, LLC (“Triune”) (i)”Page 24 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “in September 2012, Triune voluntarily entered into a Consent Order with the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland and agreed to: (i) not”
State of Virginia Determination
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Triune, LLC · filed 2012 · Division of Securities and Retail Franchising, Virginia State Corporation Commission (Settlement Order) · SEC-2012-00027
“… Case No. SEC-2012-00027 In February 2012, the Division of Securities and Retail Franchising of the State Corporation Commission (the "Commission") alleged”Page 24 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “on November 26, 2012, Triune voluntarily entered into a Settlement Order with the Commission and agreed to (i) not violate the Virginia Act in the”
In the Matter of Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc., Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland (Case No. 2007-0194)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc. · filed 2007-09-12 · Securities Commissioner of Maryland (Consent Order, later amended) · 2007-0194
“… On September 12, 2007, Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc.”Page 25 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “MWF fully complied with the Amended Consent Order, and subsequently employed a compliance monitor and was granted registration in the” (page 26)
In the Matter of Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc., Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland (Case No. 2005-0651)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc. · filed 2005-11-11 · Securities Commissioner of Maryland (Consent Order) · 2005-0651
“… On November 11, 2005, Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc.”Page 25 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “At this time, MWF is in full compliance with the Consent”
New York Department of Law
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Blimpie Associates, Ltd. and Joseph Dornbush (formerly President of Blimpie) · filed 1992 · New York Department of Law (consent judgment)
“… In May 1992, Blimpie Associates, Ltd. and Joseph Dornbush (formerly the President of Blimpie) (collectively “Respondents”), responded to a claim by the New York”Page 25 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Respondents paid the $18,000 in May 1992 and executed the consent judgment on August 25”

One proceeding above is indented under the matter it belongs to because the filing narrates them inside it — an appeal, a consolidated case, a related arbitration. Each carries its own quote and page. They are counted with their matter, not as extra matters, so this list and the 9 Item 3 discloses agree.

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

JND Tropics LLC (an entity of which the VP of Operations is a member, operating Tropical Smoothie Cafes) filed Subchapter V Chapter 11 bankruptcy June 12, 2025 in Arizona; not a bankruptcy of the franchisor itself.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Multiple settled litigation cases involving misrepresentations and marketing obligations suggest compliance issues and franchisee disputes

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 Papa Murphy's verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls