FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Senior Helpers litigation history

What Senior Helpers 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: $150K; As stated in Item 3

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

Four disclosed matters: (1) Nienart v. SH Franchising/franchisee (NJ, 2016) - caregiver negligence claims, settled for $150,000; (2) Beck v. Foreman Care Corp./SH Franchising (IN, 2018) - negligent caregiving/property damage/theft claims, settled for $150,000; (3) WA Attorney General "no-poach" provisions investigation (2019) - resolved via Assurance of Discontinuance requiring removal of non-solicitation clauses nationwide; (4) Johns v. ACK Home Care/SH Franchising (OH, 2024) - FLSA/wage claims, settled by franchisee for $42,000 with no franchisor contribution.

Item 3 (litigation) · 4 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (4)

Cynthia D. Johns v. ACK Home Care, LLC, SH Franchising, LLC and John C. Koflowitch
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2024-07-25 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Dayton Division · 3:24- cv-00210
“… Case No. 3:24- cv-00210, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Dayton Division.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case was dismissed with prejudice on April 11, 2025. Other than these items, no litigation is required to be disclosed in this Item.”
In Re: Franchise No Poaching Provisions (SH Franchising, LLC)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2019-11-22 · State of Washington, King County Superior Court · 19-2-31058-8
“… State of Washington, King County Superior Court, Civil Case No. 19-2-31058-8 - On September 6, 2019 the Attorney General of Washington sent notice to SH-Delaware that it was investigating”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Wilma Beck by Attorney-in-Fact Barbara Elkins v. Foreman Care Corp. and SH Franchising, LLC
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2018-05-10 · Cass County Superior Court, Indiana · 09D1-1805-CT-000012
“… – Cass County Superior Court, Indiana, Case No. 09D1-1805-CT-000012 – Wilma Beck filed a complaint on May 10, 2018 against Foreman Care Corp., a franchisee and SH-Delaware.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties entered into a Release and Confidentiality Agreement on August 5, 2019 wherein the plaintiff was paid $150,000 in return for the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice.”
Allegra Nienart as Attorney-in-Fact for Benjamin Nienart and Lila B. Nienart, husband and wife vs. SH Franchising, LLC, Skylands Home Care, LLC dba Senior Helpers, Kewbwna Bonna, Tamara Young and Erica Craft
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2016 · Superior Court of New Jersey for Essex County · ESX-L-220-16
“… Superior Court of New Jersey for Essex County, ESX-L-220-16.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties entered into a Release of All Claims on October 4, 2017, wherein the parties agreed to dismiss the litigation and the plaintiff was paid $150,000.”

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?

Back to the Senior Helpers verdict Risk analysis on the brand page