FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
School of Rock litigation history
What School of Rock 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
- 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
- 2025
- Disclosures cover the prior ten years
Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 3: litigation
No litigation involving the franchisor itself (pending or concluded). One concluded case against parent SOR Parent (Amy Blumenthal v. School of Rock Charlotte, LLC et al., filed Nov 2020, settled May 2021 for $35,000, landlord/tenant dispute). Additional disclosures describe settlements involving unrelated Affiliated Programs (Arby's, Dunkin') under Roark Capital, none involving the School of Rock brand.
Item 3 (litigation) · 4 matters disclosed
Litigation cases
Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor
Concluded (4)
Amy Blumenthal v. School of Rock Charlotte, LLC, SOR Schools III, LLC, School of Rock, LLC, and John Cappadona
settledBrought by a third party · SOR Parent entities (School of Rock, LLC, School of Rock Charlotte, LLC, SOR Schools III, LLC) and our CFO · filed 2020-11-17 · General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, County of Mecklenburg, State of North Carolina · 20-CVS-15294
“… General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, County of Mecklenburg, State of North Carolina, No. 20-CVS-15294, filed November 17, 2020.”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On May 10, 2021, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement, under which all parties denied any allegations of fault or liability, and Defendants agreed to pay plaintiff $35,000.”
New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (our affiliate) · filed 2019-09-26 · N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County · 451787/2019
“… (N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County, Case No. 451787/2019, filed September 26, 2019).”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
The People of the State of California v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (our affiliate) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09397
“… (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09397, filed March 19, 2019).”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
The People of the State of California v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (our affiliate) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09597
“… (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09597, filed on March 19, 2019).”Page 18 of the 2025 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.
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?