FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen litigation history

What Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen 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: 10; 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: 2025; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

Two pending cases against PLK: (1) Khalid Zia Syed related to Toronto restaurant closures (Oct 2024, ONT); (2) Pinnacle Foods CA development agreement dispute (filed Dec 2020, franchisee in bankruptcy). PLK initiated: (3) v. Florida Pop LLC trademark enforcement (filed Oct 2023, settled Mar 2024). Concluded against PLK: (4) Elite Cajun Foods (settled Mar 2019). Multi-jurisdictional no-poach settlements with 13+ state AGs (Feb 2020, no money paid). Several affiliate cases (BK, TH) where PLK is not a party.

Item 3 (litigation) · 10 matters disclosed · 6 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (2)

Khalid Zia Syed, 14111109 Canada Inc., 14111290 Canada Inc., 14111168 Canada Inc, and 141111231 Canada Inc. v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Inc., Rob Manuel, Tariq Shah, Shah & Shah Lawyers, Khurram Hafeez, Shazia Qureshi, Re/Max Real Estate Centre Inc. and Javid Ali
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2024-10-23 · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · CV-00729046-0000
“… (File No. CV- 00729046-0000), Ontario Superior Court of Justice , filed on October 23, 2024.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Pinnacle Foods of California, LLC v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2020-12-31 · Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles; removed to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; transferred to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 2OSTCV49914 (C.D. Cal. 2;21-cv-02050; S.D. Fla. 1:21-cv-21555)
“… (Case No. 2OSTCV49914), Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, filed on December 31, 2020”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Plaintiff also filed a motion in limine which Popeyes opposed, and Popeyes filed a motion to have facts asserted by Popeyes in support of its motion for summary judgment deemed admitted, which has been opposed by Plaintiff. The above-described motion for summary judgment and related motions remain pending.”

Concluded (3)

Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. v. Florida Pop, LLC, Pop Restaurant Holdings, LLC and Guillermo Perales
settled
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2023-10-16 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 23-cv-23955
“Unauthorized Trademark Usage Enforcement: Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. v. Florida Pop, LLC, Pop Restaurant Holdings, LLC and Guillermo Perales, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 23-cv-23955, filed on October 16, 2023.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On March 27, 2024, the parties entered a settlement which resulted in the sale of almost all of Defendants’ Florida restaurants to an approved buyer and the payment of our attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 29, 2024, the Court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss the case.”
Multi-Jurisdictional No-Poach Settlements (state Attorneys General)
settled
Government or regulatory action · filed 2020 · State Attorneys General: Massachusetts, California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia
“In February 2020, we entered into a Settlement Agreement with the states of Massachusetts, California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “None of the parties paid any money under the Settlement Agreements. These states enforced the settlement agreements through Final Judgments and Orders, Assurances of Discontinuance, Assurances of Voluntary Compliance and similar methods.”
Elite Cajun Foods II, LLC v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2019-02-08 · United States District Court for the Northern District of California (removed from Superior Court, County of Contra Costa, Case No. C19-00010) · 3:19-cv-00706
“… (Case No. 3:19-cv-00706), United States District Court for the Northern District of California, filed February 8, 2019.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On March 26, 2019, a settlement agreement was executed and the Plaintiff closed five of the six restaurants, and Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case with prejudice.” (page 22)

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (4)

Jonathan Deschatelets v Restaurant Brands International Inc., Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership and The TDL Group Corp.
pending
Restaurant Brands International Inc. and Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership (parents) and The TDL Group Corp. (affiliate) · filed 2024-04-19 · Superior Court of Quebec · 500-06-001306-246
“… (File No. 500-06-001306-246), Superior Court of Quebec, filed on April 19, 2024. On April 19, 2024, Jonathan Deschatelets filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants before the Superior Court of Quebec.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The certification hearing of the class action is scheduled for May 20, 2025. We are not a party to this litigation.” (page 21)
Plymouth County Retirement Association, Scott Hamparian, Emad Tadros and Zeiad Tadros V. Restaurant Brands International Inc., Matthew Perelman and Alexander Sloane
pending
Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI), with individual directors Matthew Perelman and Alexander Sloane · filed 2024-10-07 · Court of Chancery of State of Delaware · C.A. No 2024 – 1030
“… (C.A. No 2024 – 1030), Court of Chancery of State of Delaware, filed on October 7, 2024.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “RBI filed a motion to dismiss in December 2024 and the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in February 2025. RBI filed an amended motion to dismiss on March 14, 2025. We are not a party to this litigation.”
Olympia Tile International Inc. vs. Restaurant Brands International Inc., The TDL Group Corp., Ricky Leem and Gesco Limited Partnership
pending
Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI, general partner of PLK's indirect parent RBILP) and The TDL Group Corp. (affiliate) · filed 2020-09-25 · Ontario Court of Justice (Statement of Claim filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice) · CV-20-00648343-0000
“… (File No. CV-20-00648343-0000), Ontario Court of Justice filed on September 25, 2020. On September 25, 2020, Plaintiff Filed a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Defendants.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Defendants received Plaintiff’s Response to its Demand for Particulars on April 14, 2021 and filed a Statement of Defense on June 28, 2021. We are not a party to this litigation.”
Arrington v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc.
pending
BK Corporation (Burger King Corporation) and affiliates incl. Burger King Worldwide, Inc. · filed 2019-03-15 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 18-24128-CV-MARTINEZ/AOR
“… (Case No. 18-24128-CV-MARTINEZ/AOR), United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, filed on March 15, 2019.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On August 31, 2022, the federal appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.”

Concluded (1)

PLK APAC PTE. Ltd. and Restaurant Brands International, Inc. v. Popeyes Shanghai Restaurant Management Co. Ltd.; TFI TAB Gida Yatirimlari A.Ş.; and TFI Asia Holdings B.V.
settled
Brought against a franchisee · PLK APAC PTE. Ltd. (affiliate) and Restaurant Brands International, Inc. (parent) · filed 2021-03-12 · International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration (Singapore) · ICC CASE NO. 26121/HTG
“… (International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration, ICC CASE NO. 26121/HTG) filed on March 12, 2021.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties reached a confidential settlement which was acknowledged by the ICC pursuant to an Award by Consent dated June 20, 2022. We are not a party to this litigation.”

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

Multiple active litigation cases including class actions and antitrust allegations (no-poach violations) indicate systemic governance and compliance issues
Parent company RBI litigation involvement suggests corporate-level problems that could cascade to franchisees through policy changes or brand damage
Breach of development agreement litigation suggests franchisor enforcement inconsistency and potential territorial/growth restriction conflicts

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 Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls