Pinkberry Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $285K – $663K
- Disclosed sales
- $648K
- gross sales, not profit
- SBA charge-off
- Limited · 21 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Pinkberry is a frozen yogurt franchise known for tart swirled yogurt and fresh fruit toppings. Franchisees run the shops, managing product prep, staffing, and counter service in high-traffic retail spots.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Pinkberry franchise requires a total initial investment of $285K – $663K, including a $35K franchise fee and an ongoing 6.0% royalty[2]. Per the 2025 FDD, average unit revenue was $648K[2]. FranchiseVerdict grade: B (Above average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: medium - issued 12 to 24 months ago; a newer filing is likely on file
Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✓ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored6 of 7 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing; the rest are marked “Not cited” beside the figure.
Overview
- Investment
- $285K – $663K
- 46th pct Service Resta…
- Avg gross sales
- $648K
- 9th pct Service Resta…
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- 48th pct Service Resta…
- Units
- 59
- 68th pct Service Resta…
- SBA charge-off
- N/A
Quick verdict · Quick-Service Restaurants · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Quick-Service Restaurants median · No shading = within ±10% · Red = unfavorable by >10% · Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a)
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Not financial advice. Methodology
Bottom line
- COSTTotal investment $285K – $663K including a $35K franchise fee, 6.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSAverage unit revenue of $648K/year (median $664K).
- RISKVerdict B (Above average), verdict score 56/100 (higher is better).
- GROWTHNegative: net -4 franchised outlets in the latest year (4 opened, 8 closed); 12 signed but not yet open (Item 20).
- LEGAL20 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of the 15 listed on this page, 3 name the franchisor itself, 11 its parent, affiliates or predecessor, 1 an officer personally. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.
- Parent company
- Kahala Brands, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 7 of the 2025 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- MTY Food Group, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 7 of the 2025 FDD
- Predecessor
- Pinkberry Ventures, Inc. (PVI); Pinkberry Franchising Company (PFC)
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- Chief Executive Officer
- Eric Lefebvre
- CEO experience
- 2018 yrs
- Years in role or industry
- Incorporated in
- AZ
- HQ
- 9311 E. Via De Ventura, Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
- Auditor
- PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $580.3M
- vs $263.7M prior year
- Management churn noted
- Frequent turnover
- Item 2 disclosed frequent executive changes
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 7
26 other brands on this site name MTY Food Group, Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
- Barrio QueenC
- BlimpieD
- Chicken Strips and DipsD
- Cold Stone CreameryC
- Extreme PitaF
- Famous Dave’sB
- Ginger Sushi + Poke ShopC
- GrabbagreenC
- Great SteakC
- Kahala Coffee TradersB
- La DiperieB
- Manchu WOKB
- Maui WowiD
- Mucho BurritoB
- NrGize Lifestyle CafeB
- Papa Murphy'sA
- Planet SmoothieC
- Samurai Sam’s Teriyaki GrillB
- Sauce Pizza / WineD
- Surf City SqueezeD
- TacoTimeC
- Thai ExpressD
- Village InnD
- Wetzel’s PretzelsA
- +2 more
Portfolio: MTY Food Group · Kahala Brands
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2025 FDD). Spelling variants of the same group may be listed apart; a brand is never grouped with an owner its filing does not name.
Overview
About
- CEO
- Eric Lefebvre
- Headquarters
- AZ
- Founded
- 2006
- FDD year
- 2025
- States available
- 11
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost is about typical for a quick-service restaurants franchise (near the category median).
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7
Full Item 7 breakdown21 line items
Initial investment breakdown
| Line item | Low | High | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Franchise Feenot refundable | $14K | $35K | |
| Lease Review Feenot refundable | $0 | $3K | |
| Architect, engineer and other design professionalsnot refundable | $10K | $21K | |
| Expenses While Trainingnot refundable | $3K | $8K | |
| Acquisition of Real Estate / Deposits and Initial Rentnot refundable | $9K | $23K | |
| Constructionnot refundable | $82K | $215K | |
| Furnishingsnot refundable | $11K | $28K | |
| Equipmentnot refundable | $92K | $235K | |
| Inventorynot refundable | $10K | $15K | |
| Utility Deposits and Feesnot refundable | $0 | $3K | |
| Business Licensenot refundable | $300 | $600 | |
| Insurancenot refundable | $2K | $3K | |
| PCI Compliance Costsnot refundable | $150 | $1K | |
| Catering/Delivery Servicenot refundable | $0 | $8K | |
| Information Systemsnot refundable | $3K | $5K | |
| Telephonenot refundable | $150 | $300 | |
| Signagenot refundable | $8K | $17K | |
| Legal and Accountingnot refundable | $3K | $5K | |
| Additional Funds - 3 monthsnot refundable | $25K | $25K | |
| Grand Opening Marketingnot refundable | $10K | $10K | |
| Total initial investment | $285K | $663K |
Line items extracted from FDD Item 7. Ranges reflect the franchisor's stated low and high per line. Total is the sum of line-item lows / highs — actual costs may fall outside this range depending on market and build-out scope.
Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate
The Vitals
- Total investment
- $285K – $663K
- Middle of category vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $25K – $25K
- Middle of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $35K – $35K
- Middle of category vs category
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 2.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 8.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 6.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 2.0% of gross sales |
| Technology fee | $115 |
| Training fee | $750 |
| Transfer fee | $8K |
| Renewal fee | $18K |
| Inventory (initial) | $10K – $15K |
| Total fee load | 8.0% of rev |
What do units actually make?
Average unit sales run 34% below the quick-service restaurants norm.
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 19
Single-unit · not modelled
Returns at a glance
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit, and the operating costs that turn one into the other are in no filing. We publish no modelled return for Pinkberry until someone supplies them — yours, in the models below.
—
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
Total invested capital · disclosed
$499K
Item 7 initial investment plus working capital, as filed — the one figure here that needs no assumption.
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
What one unit earns on your invested capital
Model A · Single-Unit Return
Computes unlevered return on invested capital (ROIC) for a single franchise unit, read against the 30–60% reference band · Yale SOM, Post-MBA Path Exhibit 2 (2023). Below that band a passive index fund likely outperforms; above it the franchisor has pricing power you're subsidizing.
Note: Item 19 revenue is what the franchisor discloses, and it is the top line only — gross sales are not profit. No FDD discloses the operating costs that turn one into the other, so those fields start empty and nothing is modelled until you supply them from your own lease quote, labor market and build-out budget.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one Pinkberry unit return on the cash you put in?
Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Unlevered ROIC · per unit
Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.
—
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
What 25 units return when you use SBA financing
Model B · Return on Equity: Debt-Financed Acquisition
Models a 25-unit portfolio acquisition financed with an SBA 7(a) loan. Shows equity IRR (your return on cash invested), DSCR (how safely the cash flow covers debt service), and the capital stack (SBA + seller + equity breakdown).
This is the “search fund” or “entrepreneurship through acquisition” scenario: you buy an existing multi-unit operator, use leverage to amplify returns, and either operate or hire management. The 25-unit size is the typical minimum for an SBA-backed franchise portfolio acquisition to pencil as a full-time income.
What “return on equity” means here: if you put in $500K of your own cash and the business generates enough EBITDA to pay down debt and grow, your equity IRR is the annual return on that $500K, including the value created when you eventually sell. Target IRR for a search fund is typically 25–35%.
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
A 25-unit return is built on a per-unit EBITDA. Fill in the operating costs in Model A above and this model runs on that figure, or take the whole scenario to the full ROI workbench, where the portfolio and LBO models accept your own per-unit economics directly.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2025 FDD
Financial Performance
- Avg gross sales
- $648K
- Per unit, per year
- Median gross sales
- $664K
Gross sales are revenue before expenses — not profit. Actual owner earnings depend on rent, labor, royalties, marketing fees, and debt service.
- Item 19 type
- gross sales
- Sample size
- 55 outlets
- vs category median 19 · large
- Reporting year
- 2024
- Fiscal year the figures cover
- Source filing
- FDD 2025
- Disclosed in the 2025 filing, covering 2024
- Transparency
- 4 / 10
- vs category median 4 / 10 · typical
Compared against 781 Quick-Service Restaurants brands
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Unit economics
Average unit generates $648K/year in gross sales. Revenue-to-investment ratio: 1.4x.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 8.0% (near the Quick-Service Restaurants median).
Disclosure
Transparency score 4/10 — this franchisor discloses detailed breakdowns (quartiles, segments, or cohort data). Buyers can model unit economics with higher confidence.
Operator retention
System contracting at -7.8% CAGR over 3 years. Investigate whether closures are franchisor-driven consolidation or franchisee exits.
Source: FDD Item 19 financial performance representations and publicly filed FDD data. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Verify all figures with the franchisor and current franchisees before making any investment decision.
vs Quick-Service Restaurants medians
How Pinkberry Compares
Category median of published Quick-Service Restaurants brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 59
- Opened
- 4
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 8
- Terminated
- 0
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 1
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 13.6%
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- -7.8%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- -7.8%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 0
- Not renewed
- 1
- Signed, not yet open
- 12
- 0.20 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 7
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
- Transfer rate
- 1.7%
- Owners selling to other franchisees
- Termination rate
- 1.7%
- Franchisor-initiated terminations
- Ceased ops
- 11.9%
- Units that stopped operating
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 7 states with active franchisees
The Territory Map
Derived from franchisee contact records. Shows states with at least one current operator. Not where the franchisor is registered to sell new units (that data is re-extracting in a future refresh).
States derived from franchisee contact records (FDD Item 20). Shows states with at least one current operator on file. Full state registration data (Item 12) will appear on a future FDD refresh.
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
17 current owners across 2 states; 12 former (terminated, transferred or not renewed) listed separately.
- CA 10
- NY 7
Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA 7(a) and 504 loan disclosures, public data unique to FranchiseVerdict.
- Total loans
- 21
- Loan volume
- $7.7M
- Median loan
- $350K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- Limited · 21 loans
- Limited SBA coverage: 21 loans, rate hidden until 10 have resolved and loans reach 2% of franchised units
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- Limited · 21 loans
- 5-yr charge-off
- 0.0%
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 14
- Defaults
- 0
- Typical loan rate
- 6.8%
- avg rate to borrowers
- Franchised industry avg
- 10.6%
- n=3,755 loans
- Jobs supported
- 757
- 10.2 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 20%
- top lender's share
Borrower mix: 43% went to startups / new businesses, 57% to established operators
Franchise vs independent — in snack and nonalcoholic beverage bars, franchised businesses charge off at 10.6% vs 8.9% for independents — franchising is associated with 19% higher SBA default risk in this category.
Top lenders financing Pinkberry franchisees
Showing 3 of 14 lenders. The full breakdown — every lender, state distribution, interest rates & risk ratings — is in the SBA Lending Report below.
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
Lender network · 7(a) + 504
SBA Lending Report
Full lending analysis for Pinkberry from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 0.0%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 70%
- Avg interest rate
- 6.80%
- Lender concentration
- 20.0%
- Job velocity
- 10.2 per $100K
- NAICS benchmark
- 7.0%
- NAICS 722515
- Jobs supported
- 757
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 20% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Leader Bank, National Association | 4 | $1.6M | 0.0% |
| 2 | JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association | 2 | $210K | 0.0% |
| 3 | Commonwealth Business Bank | 2 | $1.0M | 0.0% |
| 4 | First Interstate Bank | 2 | $723K | 0.0% |
| 5 | Citizens Bank | 2 | $1.4M | N/A |
| 6 | CRF Small Business Loan Company, LLC | 1 | $327K | 0.0% |
| 7 | SMBC MANUBANK | 1 | $149K | 0.0% |
| 8 | PNC Bank, National Association | 1 | $600K | 0.0% |
| 9 | Open Bank | 1 | $193K | 0.0% |
| 10 | Eastern Bank | 1 | $270K | 0.0% |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| CACalifornia | 9 | 0 | 0.0% |
| MAMassachusetts | 4 | 0 | 0.0% |
| COColorado | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OKOklahoma | 1 | 0 | -- |
| PAPennsylvania | 1 | 0 | -- |
| RIRhode Island | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| TXTexas | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| VAVirginia | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
SBA 7(a) lending trend
Borrower profile
Source: SBA 7(a) + 504 FOIA loan-level data, matched by FranchiseVerdict
What could kill this investment?
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
Pinkberry presents high risk due to a contracting franchise system (-6.3% YoY), undisclosed net profitability, significant litigation history including franchise law violations, and unprotected territory—creating substantial financial exposure for new franchisees in a declining brand.
Why this reads harsher than the B grade: the grade weighs financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency across the whole filing, while this summary lists individual flags without that weighting. The flags are worth checking with current owners; neither is investment advice.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Case 1: Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., EP Development, Inc., and Feisal Ramjee (Washington Superior Court, King County, Case No. 15-2-15120-7). Filed June 22, 2015. Allegations: FIPA violations, misrepresentation of financial performance by Area Developer, omission of mandatory material information, unregistered broker. Sought: rescission, treble damages, attorney's fees. Settled March 11, 2016 for $20,000. Dismissed March 16, 2016. Case 2: KOHO, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. BC572565). Filed February 17, 2015. Allegations: breach of contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief. Sought: $540,000+ damages. Kahala filed cross-complaint alleging breach, unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, negligence. Mediation failed May 3, 2016. Bench trial June 15-16, 2016. Court granted judgment for Kahala; Koho failed to establish breach and damages. Attorney's fees awarded to Kahala ($205,000) and Hannah Kim ($10,233). Koho appealed but failed to post bond. Settled June 19, 2017 with Kahala repurchasing Area Developer territory for $75,000 and forgiving $130,000 in damages.
Largest disclosed settlement: $585,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Item 21 statements are the audited CONSOLIDATED financial statements of the franchisor's parent/guarantor, MTY Franchising USA, Inc. and its subsidiaries (not the Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. shell). Stated in thousands of US dollars; all figures scaled x1000. Most recent audited fiscal year is Nov 30, 2023 (prior year Nov 30, 2022); the FDD index references 2024 but the auditor's report and statements actually attached cover FY2023/2022. Balance sheet reconciles: total assets 1,459,449K = total liabilities 1,206,513K + stockholder's equity 252,936K. Revenue is a single consolidated line (no separate other_revenue breakout). Audited by PwC, Montreal, Canada (report dated Feb 2, 2024).
ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results — the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
- Franchisor sells you products: Yes
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: No
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: No
Score breakdown · what drove the 56 / 100 verdict
- 01MEDUnit count declined 6.3% YoY (59 units) indicating system contraction and potential market saturation or operational challenges
- 02HIGHHistory of litigation involving breach of contract, misrepresentation, and franchise law violations suggests franchisor-franchisee relationship issues and legal risk exposure
- 03MINORNo average net income disclosure despite $648K average revenue — inability or unwillingness to show profitability is a major red flag
- 04MINORUnprotected territory creates direct competition risk; franchisor can place additional units nearby, cannibalizing sales
- 05HIGHFranchisor litigation history including lawsuits filed against franchisees suggests enforcement-heavy approach and potential relationship deterioration
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail20 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Concluded (2)
KOHO, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2015 · Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles · BC572565
“KOHO, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.; Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles; Case No.: BC572565. On or about February 17, 2015, Koho, Inc. (“Koho”) filed a Complaint against Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. (“Kahala”) alleging: (i) breach of contract; (ii) unjust enrichment; and (iii) declaratory relief.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“whereby Kahala repurchased Koho’s Area Developer territory for the sum of $75,000 and forgave the remaining damages owed in the amount of $130,000.” (page 22)
Texas Nrgize #1, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. and Kahala Holdings, L.L.C.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2014 · 67th Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas; removed to United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; transferred to District of Arizona · 067-272652-14; 4:14-cv-544-Y; CV15-0337 PHX DGC
“Texas Nrgize #1, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. and Kahala Holdings, L.L.C.; 67th Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas; Civil Action No.: 067-272652-14 subsequently removed to United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; Case No.: 4:14-cv-544-Y.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In December 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement in which Defendant paid Plaintiff the sum of $35,000. The parties filed a Stipulation to Dismiss With Prejudice on December 18, 2015.”
Status not stated in the filing (1)
Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. All About Food, Inc. and Chu Yup Lee a/k/a Michale Lee
Brought against a franchisee · Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Lake County, Illinois · 2024LA00000001
“Suit for Breach of Contract Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. All About Food, Inc. and Chu Yup Lee a/k/a Michale Lee; In the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Lake County, Illinois; Case No.: 2024LA00000001.”Page 30 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Concluded (10)
Pretzelsdallas1, Inc. v. Wetzel’s Pretzels, L.L.C.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Wetzel’s Pretzels, L.L.C. · filed 2019 · American Arbitration Association, Los Angeles, California · AAA Case No.01-19-0002- 9326
“Pretzelsdallas1, Inc. v. Wetzel’s Pretzels, L.L.C.; Los Angeles, California; AAA Case No.01-19-0002- 9326. On or about July 19, 2017, we entered into a franchise agreement with Pretzelsdallas1, Inc. (then known as Triple Scoops, Inc.). On or about September 11, 2019, Pretzelsdallas1, Inc., (“Claimant/Counter Respondent”) a franchisee, filed a demand for arbitration against Wetzel’s Pretzels,”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“September 24, 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, in which a mutual release of all claims was agreed to, and Respondent/Counter Claimant paid Claimant/Counter Respondent the sum of $125,000. The matter was subsequently dismissed with prejudice.”
Desert Ribs, L.L.C., Famous Gracie, L.L.C., Famous Freddie, L.L.C., Famous George, L.L.C. and Famous Charlie, L.L.C. v. Famous Dave’s of America, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. · filed 2016-03-14 · American Arbitration Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota · 01 16 0000 8549
“Desert Ribs, L.L.C., Famous Gracie, L.L.C., Famous Freddie, L.L.C., Famous George, L.L.C. and Famous Charlie, L.L.C. v. Famous Dave’s of America, Inc., American Arbitration Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Case No. 01 16 0000 8549. On March 14, 2016, the franchisees for the Famous Dave’s® Restaurants in Chandler, Peoria, Mesa and Gilbert, Arizona (“Claimants”) filed a Demand for Arbitration”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
SFF, L.L.C. v. Carmel Village Yogurt Company L.L.C.
dismissedBrought against a franchisee · SFF, L.L.C. · filed 2016-08-29 · City of Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court · CL16-3927
“SFF, L.L.C. v. Carmel Village Yogurt Company L.L.C.; City of Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court; Case No. CL16-3927. On August 29, 2016, SFF, L.L.C. (“Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against three sweetFrog franchisee entities, Carmel Village Yogurt Company L.L.C. (“Defendant Carmel YC”), Huntersville Yogurt Company, L.L.C. (“Defendant Huntersville YC”), and Mooresville Yogurt Co, L.L.C.”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Carmel YC transferred the assets of its business to Plaintiff and Plaintiff paid Defendant Carmel YC $25,000; (iii) Plaintiff reinstated Defendant Huntersville YC’s and Defendant Mooresville YC’s terminated franchise agreements; and (iv) Plaintiff granted Defendant Anto the right to develop a new sweetFrog shop at a mutually”
Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. v. Allan Gantes; John Gantes; M Mart 1, L.L.C.; Kurt Schneiter; Shoreline FD Investors, L.L.C.; SR El Centro FD, Inc. SR Long Beach FD, Inc.; SR Palmdale FD, Inc.; SR Restaurant Holdings Group, Inc.; SR Simi Valley FD, Inc.; SR Tracey FD, Inc.
settledBrought against a franchisee · Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. · filed 2015-07-24 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division · BC589329
“Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. v. Allan Gantes; John Gantes; M Mart 1, L.L.C.; Kurt Schneiter; Shoreline FD Investors, L.L.C.; SR El Centro FD, Inc. SR Long Beach FD, Inc.; SR Palmdale FD, Inc.; SR Restaurant Holdings Group, Inc.; SR Simi Valley FD, Inc.; SR Tracey FD, Inc.; Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division, Case No. BC589329.”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On September 29, 2018, the parties agreed to enter into a confidential settlement agreement and a mutual release of claims (the “El Centro Settlement Agreement”), which contained the following material terms: (i) SR Defendants received $75,000 towards the payment of their attorney’s fees contingent” (page 25)
Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., EP Development, Inc., and Feisal Ramjee
settledBrought 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
“Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., EP Development, Inc., and Feisal Ramjee ; Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, Case No. 15-2-15120-7. On June 22, 2015, Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint against The Extreme Pita Franchising USA,”Page 21 of the 2025 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.”
Rob & Bud’s Pizza, L.L.C. v. Papa Murphy’s International, Inc. and Papa Murphy’s International, L.L.C.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Papa Murphy’s International, Inc. and Papa Murphy’s International, L.L.C. · filed 2015-04-17 · United States District Court for the Western District of Washington · 5:15-cv-05090- TLB
“Rob & Bud’s Pizza, L.L.C. v. Papa Murphy’s International, Inc. and Papa Murphy’s International, L.L.C.; United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Case No. 5:15-cv-05090- TLB. In spring 2015, Papa Murphy’s sent a notice of default to plaintiff for alleged defaults under the plaintiff’s franchise agreements.”Page 27 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“with prejudice as part of a settlement with plaintiff in this case and the LMP case under which Papa Murphy’s purchased plaintiff’s nine Papa Murphy’s stores at an agreed upon value of the stores’ assets plus $500,000.” (page 28)
DTD Pizza LLC, et al. v. Papa Murphy’s International LLC, et al. (consolidated with Mitch and Kristen Brink, et al. v. Papa Murphy’s International LLC, et al.)
settledBrought by a franchisee · Papa Murphy’s International LLC (and related Papa Murphy’s entities, board members and executives) · filed 2014 · Washington Superior Court, Clark County · 14-2-00904-0 (consolidated with 14-2- 01743-3)
“DTD Pizza LLC, Brian Watson, Alton Spears, LMP Enterprises LLC, Pizza Enterprises LLC, Alan and Denise Barnett, DOB Enterprises, Inc., Douglas and Lesia Billing, Rob & Bud's Pizza, Robert J. Dickerson Trust UA, Rob Dickerson, 4LM Enterprises, Inc., Jana and Randell Liles, Ben and Kim Mayfield, SEAMS Holdings LLC, Scott and Erica Shelby, Robert Hoersting, PM Savannah LLC, James and Mona King, Hans”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Each of the plaintiff groups =entered into settlements with Papa Murphy’s in which they dismissed all of their claims against defendants with prejudice and the action was dismissed in June 2020.” (page 27)
Urquieta Sweet Frog, L.L.C. and Ana Urquieta v. SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C. d/b/a SFF, L.L.C.
settledBrought by a franchisee · SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C. d/b/a SFF, L.L.C. · filed 2014-12-23 · American Arbitration Association · 01 14 0001 8086
“Urquieta Sweet Frog, L.L.C. and Ana Urquieta v. SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C. d/b/a SFF, L.L.C., American Arbitration Association; Case No. 01 14 0001 8086. On December 23, 2014, Urquieta Sweet Frog, L.L.C. and Ana Urquieta, a former sweetFrog franchisee and its owner (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed a Demand for Arbitration against SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C. (“Defendant”).”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“This matter was settled in December of 2015. Under the settlement, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiffs $300,000 and the parties executed mutual releases.”
Fresh Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Ledang Investment Group, L.L.C., Vincent Tienn Le, Ho Tien Le and Hue This Dang
settledThird-party plaintiff · Fresh Enterprises, L.L.C. (successor in interest to BF Acquisition, L.L.C.) · filed 2013-07-02 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara; arbitrated before the American Arbitration Association · 1-13-CV- 257219; AAA 72-20-1400-0126
“Fresh Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Ledang Investment Group, L.L.C., Vincent Tienn Le, Ho Tien Le and Hue This Dang Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-13-CV- 257219.”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On February 2, 2015, the Arbitrator issued an award in favor of Cross Claimants Ledang in the amount of $660,620.84. The parties entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement on July 20, 2015, under which Counter Defendants paid the Cross Claimants Ledang the sum of $585,000 and the matter was dismissed with prejudice.” (page 24)
In the Matter of Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc., Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2007-0194
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc. (predecessor in interest to Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.) · filed 2007 · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2007-0194
“In the Matter of Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc., Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2007-0194. On September 12, 2007, “MWF” entered into a Consent Order with the Maryland Commissioner resulting from MWF inadvertently entering into two franchise agreements with two Maryland residents (“Second Maryland Franchisees”) without delivering to them the appropriate Offering Circular.”Page 29 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“... training program or trainer to monitor MWF’s franchise activities in Maryland for two years; and to reimburse the Maryland Attorney General for its investigation and resolution costs in the total amount of $2,500.”
Status not stated in the filing (1)
Cold Stone Creamery Leasing Company, Inc. v. JRF, Inc.
Brought against a franchisee · Cold Stone Creamery Leasing Company, Inc. · Iowa District Court for Dallas County · SCSC050015
“Suit for Forcible Entry and Detainer Cold Stone Creamery Leasing Company, Inc. v. JRF, Inc.; Iowa District Court for Dallas County; Case No.: SCSC050015.”Page 30 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)
Concluded (1)
In re: Restaurants Acquisition I, L.L.C. (Giuliano vs. W. Craig Barber et. al.)
settledThird-party plaintiff · W. Craig Barber (Chief Executive Officer) and Robert Langford (Chief Concept Officer – Family Restaurant Division) · filed 2017 · United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware · 15-12406 (KG)
“In re: Restaurants Acquisition I, L.L.C. (Giuliano vs. W. Craig Barber et. al. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on December 2, 2015 (Case No. 15-12406 (KG)).”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On March 6, 2019, Barber and Langford each settled with the Chapter 7 trustee by each agreeing to pay to the trustee and estate separate payments totaling $150,000 each over a three-year period.” (page 26)
This list shows 15 of the 20 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.
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.
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 8.0% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 10 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 5 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 1 |
| Territory type | No territory protection |
| Protected territory | No |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Restricted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Optional |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 2 years |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 10 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | No |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 14 days |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | franchisee_state |
| Jury trial waiver | Yes |
| Governing law | State where franchised business is located |
| Litigation count | 20 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Case 1: Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., EP Development, Inc., and Feisal Ramjee (Washington Superior Court, King County, Case No. 15-2-15120-7). Filed June 22, 2015. Allegations: FIPA violations, misrepresentation of financial performance by Area Developer, omission of mandatory material information, unregistered broker. Sought: rescission, treble damages, attorney's fees. Settled March 11, 2016 for $20,000. Dismissed March 16, 2016. Case 2: KOHO, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. BC572565). Filed February 17, 2015. Allegations: breach of contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief. Sought: $540,000+ damages. Kahala filed cross-complaint alleging breach, unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, negligence. Mediation failed May 3, 2016. Bench trial June 15-16, 2016. Court granted judgment for Kahala; Koho failed to establish breach and damages. Attorney's fees awarded to Kahala ($205,000) and Hannah Kim ($10,233). Koho appealed but failed to post bond. Settled June 19, 2017 with Kahala repurchasing Area Developer territory for $75,000 and forgiving $130,000 in damages.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 40 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 80 hrs
- Training location
- Online/KTEC in Scottsdale, AZ; in-store at franchisee's location
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 9 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- Franchisee with franchisor approval
- Franchisor financing
- Offered
- Item 10
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
29 owners to call
Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to open a Pinkberry franchise?
The total investment to open a Pinkberry franchise ranges from $285K – $663K, with an initial franchise fee of $35K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do Pinkberry franchise owners earn?
According to Item 19 of the Pinkberry FDD, the average gross sales per unit is $648K. The median is $664K. Note: this is gross revenue, not profit. Actual owner earnings vary based on location, operating costs, and management.
Who owns Pinkberry?
Pinkberry is franchised by Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.. Its parent company is Kahala Brands, Inc.. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is MTY Food Group, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Pinkberry FDD?
The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the Pinkberry FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Pinkberry's franchise failure rate?
SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for Pinkberry (fewer than 10 loans on file). Charge-off rates are one way to gauge franchise risk, but not all franchise loans go through the SBA program. We recommend reviewing turnover and closure data in the FDD and speaking with current franchisees.
How many Pinkberry franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Pinkberry has 59 total units in the United States, including 59 franchised units and 0 company-owned units. 4 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Pinkberry a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Pinkberry as a B-grade franchise with a verdict score of 56 out of 100 (higher is better). The grade is a deterministic score built from six weighted dimensions — financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency — then calibrated against SBA loan charge-off rates and FDD age. Transparency is one of the six, so a filing that discloses less scores lower on that dimension than one that discloses more. Our rating is based solely on publicly available FDD and government data; we recommend speaking with current franchisees before making any investment decision. This is not investment advice.
Data sourced from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) FOIA records. Not financial advice.
For franchisors
Are you the franchisor?
If you represent Pinkberry, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Quick-Service Restaurants franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Quick-Service Restaurants category
Data extracted from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) loan disclosures (FOIA). This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.