FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Peri Peri Original or Kallisto Steakhouse litigation history

What Peri Peri Original or Kallisto Steakhouse 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: 3; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $5K; As stated in Item 3

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

Three administrative proceedings: (1) MD Securities Commissioner Case 2024-0475 against affiliates Original DMV Inc. and Crunchy Bite LLC for failing to comply with MD Franchise Laws; consent order Oct 29, 2025, civil penalty $5,000; (2) MD Securities Commissioner Case 2024-0476 against affiliates Crunchy Bite, Original DMV, and Nash & Smash; consent order Apr 2, 2025, civil penalty $1,500; (3) Virginia SCC Sec-2025-00008 against affiliates for failing to comply with VA Retail Franchising Act; settlement order Apr 20, 2025, civil penalty $5,000.

Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (3)

Commonwealth of Virginia ex. rel. State Corporation Commission v. Nash & Smash LLC, Crunchy Bite LLC, Kallisto Steakhouse LLC, and Original DMV Inc.
settled
Government or regulatory action · Virginia State Corporation Commission · Sec-2025-00008
“… (Administrative Proceeding Before the Virginia State Corporations Commission) (Case No. Sec-2025-00008).”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On April 20, 2025, we entered into a Settlement Order with the Commission pursuant to which we agreed to (1) prior to the entry of the Order, already made rescission offers to licenses sold in Virginia; (2) paid a civil penalty of $5,000; and (3) agreed not to violate the Virginia Retail Franchising Act again.”
In the Matter of Nash & Smash LLC dba Nash & Smash
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Securities Commissioner of Maryland (administrative proceeding) · 2024-0476
“… (Administrative Proceeding Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, (Case No. 2024-0476).”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On April 2, 2025, we entered into a Consent Order with the Commissioner pursuant to which we agreed to (1) make rescission offers to persons who purchased License Agreements; (2) pay a civil penalty of $1,500; and (3) disclose this matter in Item 3 of this FDD.”
In the Matter of Original DMV Inc. and Crunchy Bite LLC
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Securities Commissioner of Maryland (administrative proceeding) · 2024-0475
“… (Administrative Proceeding Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, (Case No. 2024-0475).”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On October 29, 2025, we entered into a Consent Order with the Commissioner pursuant to which we agreed to (1) make rescission offers to persons who purchased License Agreements; (2) pay a civil penalty of $5,000; and (3) disclose this matter in Item 3 of this FDD.”

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

Litigation settlement orders required rescission offers, indicating prior franchisees/licensees may have had grounds to exit — questions about viability of existing model

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 Peri Peri Original or Kallisto Steakhouse verdict Risk analysis on the brand page