FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing
Schlotzsky’s litigation history
What Schlotzsky’s 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
- 4
- 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
Item 3 discloses four matters, all against affiliates in the GoTo Foods portfolio, none against Schlotzsky's: California v. Arby's Restaurant Group (2019 multistate no-poach settlement, no money paid); California v. Dunkin' Brands (2019 no-poach settlement); New York v. Dunkin' Brands (credential-stuffing data-security action, 2020 consent order, $650,000 in penalties and costs); and In the Matter of Jimmy John's Franchisor SPV LLC (Maryland Securities Commissioner, 2025 consent order, $30,000 civil penalty for omitted former-franchisee contact information).
Item 3 (litigation) · 4 matters disclosed
Litigation cases
Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor
Concluded (4)
New York v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Dunkin' Brands, Inc. (DBI) · filed 2019-09-26 · N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County · 451787/2019
“New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County, Case No. 451787/2019, filed September 26, 2019).”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under consent order, DBI agreed to pay $650,000 in penalties and costs, issue certain notices and other types of communications to New York customers, and maintain a comprehensive information security program through September 2026, including precautions and response measures for credential- stuffing attacks.”
The People of the State of California v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. (ARG) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09397
“The People of the State of California v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09397, filed March 19, 2019).”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under the settlement agreement, ARG paid no money but agreed (a) to remove the disputed provision from its franchise agreements (which it had already done);”
The People of the State of California v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.
judgmentGovernment or regulatory action · Dunkin' Brands, Inc. (DBI) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09597
“The People of the State of California v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09597, filed on March 19, 2019.) On March 14, 2019, our affiliate, Dunkin Brands, Inc. (“DBI”), entered into a settlement agreement”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Attorney General of the State of California filed the above-reference lawsuit in order to place the settlement agreement in the public record, and the action was closed after the court approved the parties’ stipulation of judgment.” (page 27)
In the Matter of Jimmy John's Franchisor SPV LLC
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Jimmy John's Franchisor SPV LLC · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2025-0122
“In the Matter of Jimmy John’s Franchisor SPV LLC (Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2025-0122). On March 28, 2022, Jimmy John’s filed a Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) with the Maryland Securities Division as part of a notice of exemption from franchise registration.”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under the terms of the Consent Order, Jimmy John’s agreed to pay a $30,000 civil monetary penalty, to permanently cease and desist from the offer or sale of franchises in violation of the Maryland Franchise Law, and to disclose the existence of the Consent Order in future franchise disclosure documents.”
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.
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?