FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
Pinkberry litigation history
What Pinkberry 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 & 4 at a glance
What the filing discloses
- Cases disclosed
- 14
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest disclosed settlement
- $585K
- 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
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.
Disclosure signals that moved the score
How this shows up in the verdict
- History of litigation involving breach of contract, misrepresentation, and franchise law violations suggests franchisor-franchisee relationship issues and legal risk exposure
- Franchisor litigation history including lawsuits filed against franchisees suggests enforcement-heavy approach and potential relationship deterioration
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?