FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Petro Stopping Centers litigation history

What Petro Stopping Centers 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: 46; 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

Petro Franchise Systems LLC has no pending or concluded litigation. Parent/affiliate entities have 5 currently effective injunctions (California UST compliance, CFTC propane manipulation, ARCO antitrust, Atlantic Refining FTC, Richfield Oil antitrust) and several pending matters including Deepwater Horizon oil spill proceedings, Pennsylvania and Maryland MTBE lawsuits, and Mexican class actions.

Item 3 (litigation) · 46 matters disclosed · 3 pending listed

Litigation cases

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (3)

State of Maryland v. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al.
pending
Government or regulatory action · BP (parent group) · filed 2017-12-13 · Circuit Court for Baltimore City (removed to federal court in Maryland)
“… filed December 13, 2017 (Circuit Court for”Page 25 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al.
pending
Government or regulatory action · BP (parent group) · filed 2014-06-19 · MDL 1358 (S.D.N.Y.); 16 sites remanded to E.D. Pa. · MDL 1358
“… filed June 19, 2014 (MDL 1358)”Page 25 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Proceedings relating to the Gulf of America Oil Spill
pending
Government or regulatory action · BP p.l.c., BP Exploration & Production Inc. and other BP entities · filed 2010 · MDL 2179 (E.D. La.), MDL 2185 (S.D. Tex.), Mexican federal courts and others
“… BP p.l.c., BP Exploration & Production Inc. (“BP E&P”) and various other BP entities (for purposes of this disclosure relating to the Gulf of America Oil Spill, collectively referred to as “BP”) are among”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (43)

State of California, et al v. BP America Production Company, BP Energy Company, BP Corporation North America Inc., BP Products North America Inc., and BP p.l.c.
settled
Government or regulatory action · BP p.l.c. and BP group entities · filed 2014-11-04 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco · CGC- 12-522063
“… Case No. CGC- 12-522063 On November 4, 2014, the California Attorney General filed a notice in”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On January 10, 2018, a settlement of all claims was reached with BP agreeing to pay $102 million to the State of California.”
BP America Inc., et al., Docket No. IN13-15
settled
Government or regulatory action · BP America Inc., BPCNA and BP entities · filed 2013-08-05 · US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission · IN13-15
“… On August 5, 2013, the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty directing BP America Inc., BPCNA, BP America Production Company, and BP Energy”Page 25 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
City of Manning v. Ashland Inc., et al.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · BP (parent group) · filed 2013-06-27 · MDL 1358
“… filed June 27, 2013 (MDL 1358) New Jersey”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
City of Portageville v. Ashland Inc., et al.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · BP (parent group) · filed 2013-07-17 · MDL 1358
“… filed July 17, 2013 (MDL 1358) City of”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
The People of the State of California v. BP West Coast Products, LLC et al.
settled
Government or regulatory action · BP group (Item 1: BPPNA / BPCNA and BP p.l.c. - the parent group of the franchisor) · filed 2013-02-01 · Alameda County Superior Court · RG13665900
“… Case No. RG13665900 On February 1, 2013, the People of the State of California (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against, BP, BPWCP, and ARCO (collectively, “Defendants”) in the”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Town of Brewster, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., et al.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · BP (parent group) · filed 2013-07-15 · MDL 1358
“… filed July 15, 2013 (MDL”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Town of Hinesburg v. Atlantic Richfield Co., et al.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · BP (parent group) · filed 2013-07-17 · MDL 1358
“… filed July 17, 2013 (MDL 1358) City”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Jessica Geluz v. Accustandard, Inc., et al.
concluded
BP (parent group) · filed 2011-01-18 · Los Angeles Cty. Sup. Ct.
“… filed January 18, 2011 (Los Angeles Cty.”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
City of Kennett v. Ashland, Inc., et al.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · BP (parent group) · filed 2010-09-28 · MDL 1358
“… filed September 28, 2010 (MDL 1358) Coraopolis”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
City of Pattonsburg v. Ashland, Inc., et al.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · BP (parent group) · filed 2010-10-04 · MDL 1358
“… filed October 4, 2010 (MDL 1358) City of”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Coraopolis Water & Sewer Auth. v. Ashland, Inc.
concluded
BP (parent group) · filed 2010-08-19 · MDL 1358
“… filed August 19, 2010 (MDL 1358) Town of”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Town of Kouts v. Ashland, Inc., et al.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · BP (parent group) · filed 2010-05-05 · MDL 1358
“… filed May 5, 2010 (MDL 1358) Village of Bethalto”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Village of Bethalto v. Ashland, Inc., et al.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · BP (parent group) · filed 2010-04-08 · MDL 1358
“… filed April 8, 2010 (MDL 1358) Village of”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Village of Roanoke v. Ashland, Inc., et al.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · BP (parent group) · filed 2009-04-02 · MDL 1358
“… filed April 2, 2009 (MDL 1358) City of”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
City of Pomona v. Chevron, et al.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · BP (parent group) · filed 2008-12-23 · MDL 1358
“… filed December 23, 2008 (MDL 1358) Crescenta Valley”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Aguirre v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-03-16 · 3:07-cv-01534
“… filed March 16, 2007 (#3:07-cv-01534)”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
American Fiber & Cabling, LLC, et al. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-01-31 · 2:07-cv-02053
“American Fiber & Cabling, LLC, et al. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al, filed”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Butler v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-03-30 · 6:07-cv-00469
“… filed March 30, 2007 (#6:07-cv-00469) Rushing,”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Cary, et al. v. BP Corporation North America Inc., et al
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-02-07 · 5:07-cv-00155
“… filed February 7, 2007”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Cook, et al. v. Hess Corporation, et al.
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-08-22 · 2:07-cv-00750
“… filed August 22, 2007, (#2:07-cv-00750) Couch,”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America Inc.
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-06-25 · 6:07-cv-00291
“… filed June 25, 2007 (#6:07-cv-00291)”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Crescenta Valley Water Dist. v. ExxonMobil, et al.
concluded
BP (parent group) · filed 2007-01-31 · MDL 1358
“… filed January 31, 2007 (MDL 1358) Jessica Geluz v. Accustandard, Inc., et al., filed January 18, 2011 (Los Angeles Cty.”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Donaldson, et al. v. BP Corporation North America, et al
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-02-02 · 4:07-cv-00093
“… filed February 2, 2007,”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Foster, et al. v. BP North America Petroleum Inc., et al
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-01-25 · 2:07-cv-02059
“… filed January 25, 2007”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al.
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-09-05 · 2:07-cv-00661
“… filed September 5, 2007 (#2:07-cv-00661)”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Keen Exploration, LLC, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company d/b/a BP Products North America, Inc.
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-01-29 · 5:07-cv-00014
“Keen Exploration, LLC, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company d/b/a BP Products North America, Inc.,”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Korleski v. BP Corporation North America Inc.
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-09-24 · 6:07-cv-03218
“… filed September 24, 2007 (#6:07-cv-03218)”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Lalor v. BP Corporation North America Inc.
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-08-07 · 2:07-cv-03985
“… filed August 7, 2007 (#2:07-cv-03985) Panto”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Massey, et al. v. BP Corporation North America, et al
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-01-26 · 5:07-cv-00102
“… filed January 26, 2007,”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie Oil Company Inc., et al
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-03-07 · 5:07-cv-00091
“Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie Oil Company Inc., et al, filed March 7, 2007”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
concluded
BP (parent group) · filed 2007-10-11 · MDL 1358
“New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Co.,”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Panto v. BP Corporation North America Inc.
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-08-10 · 2:07-cv-03295
“… filed August 10, 2007 (#2:07-cv-03295)”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Ruybalid v. BP Corporation North America Inc.
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-06-26 · 1:07-cv-00826
“… filed June 26, 2007 (#1:07-cv-00826)”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Williams, et al v. BP Corporation North America, et al
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-02-28 · 2:07-cv-00179
“… filed February 28, 2007,”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Wyatt, et al. v. BP America Corporation d/b/a Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2007-09-06 · 3:07-cv-01754
“Wyatt, et al. v. BP America Corporation d/b/a Atlantic Richfield Company, et al., filed”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Richard Galauski et al v. Amerada Hess Corporation, et al
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2006-12-14 · 3:06-cv- 06005
“… filed December 14, 2006”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Rushing, et al. v. Ambest, Inc., et al.
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2006-12-13 · 3:06-cv-07621
“… filed December 13, 2006 (#3:06-cv-07621) Cook,”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. BP Products North America Inc.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · BP Products North America Inc. · filed 2006-06-28 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 06- C-3503
“… Case No. 06- C-3503 On June 28, 2006, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) filed a complaint against BP in the United States District Court for the Northern”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Wilson, et al. v. Ampride, et al
settled
Brought by a third party · BP (parent group) · filed 2006-12-29 · 2:06-cv-02582
“… filed December 29, 2006, (#2:06-cv-02582) Donaldson, et”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Orange County Water Dist. v. Unocal, et al.
concluded
BP (parent group) · filed 2003-05-06 · MDL 1358
“… filed May 6, 2003 (MDL 1358)Foster, et al.”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
U.S. v. The American Oil Company, et al., (including Atlantic Richfield Company and Sinclair Refining ARCO)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) · filed 1965-04-08 · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · 370-65
“… Civil Action No. 370-65 ARCO and the seven other petroleum company defendants agreed to the entry of an order by the U.S. District Court, Southern”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Federal Trade Commission, Docket 7471
concluded
Government or regulatory action · The Atlantic Refining Company · filed 1963-11-23 · Federal Trade Commission · 7471
“… On November 23, 1963, the Federal Trade Commission ordered The Atlantic Refining Company (“Atlantic”), its officers, directors and employees, to cease and desist from: entering into, continuing, cooperating in or carrying”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
United States v. Richfield Oil Corporation
judgment
Government or regulatory action · Richfield Oil Corporation · U.S. District Court, Southern District of California · 6896-Y
“… U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Civil Action No. 6896-Y In the final judgment entered on August 3, 1951, in the matter of United States v. Richfield Oil Corporation, U.S. District Court,”Page 18 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

Massive litigation exposure: Deepwater Horizon (hundreds of lawsuits), UST environmental liability, MTBE contamination, antitrust/price manipulation, and False Claims Act settlement create ongoing financial and reputational risk

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 Petro Stopping Centers verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls