FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Signarama litigation history

What Signarama 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: 5; 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

One suit initiated by SAR against a franchisee (Dec 2025) for failure to pay royalties/marketing/technology fees and operating a competing website. Historical restrictive orders: 1996 Maryland Securities Commissioner consent order re unregistered franchise sales; 1993 FTC injunction re earnings claims and undisclosed transfer fees; 2021/2022 California DFPI consent orders solely against affiliates TGG/GCZ/UFG, unrelated to SAR's core FDD.

Item 3 (litigation) · 5 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (2)

Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Minuteman Press International, Inc., Speedy Sign-A-Rama, USA, Inc., Roy W. Titus and Jeffrey Haber, Defendants
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 1993-06-04 · United States District Court, Eastern District of New York · CV 93-2496
“… (CV 93-2496) Filed on June 4, 1993, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The Federal Trade Commission complaint alleged that the Defendants violated Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On December 18, 1998, an injunction was filed prohibiting the Defendants excluding Haber from doing the following:”
In the Matter of Speedy Sign-A-Rama, USA, Inc.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · Case No. S-95-112
“Signarama entered into a consent order with the Securities Commissioner of Maryland in January of 1996. The matter is captioned In the Matter of Speedy Sign-A-Rama, USA, Inc. and is Case No. S-95- 112. It is alleged in the consent order that Speedy sold four (4) franchises in the State of Maryland after its registration under the Maryland Franchise Law had lapsed, and before it was renewed.”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In settlement of the matter, and while neither admitting nor denying the findings in the order, Speedy agreed to offer rescission to the four (4) franchisees, adopt a compliance program intended to avoid unregistered sales and disclose the existence of the order in its franchise Disclosure Document under the Maryland Franchises Law.”

Status not stated in the filing (1)

Sign*A*Rama, Inc. v. David Kinney and Kinney Custom Signs, Inc.
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-12-09 · Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, FL · Case No. 502025 CA012813XXXAMB
“… (Case No. 502025 CA012813XXXAMB, Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, FL), Filed December 9, 2025 Suit initiated by Company for failure to pay royalties, marketing fees, technology fees, failure to use the proper EPOS system, operating a competing website, and failure to comply with the Operation Manual.”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (2)

In the Matter of: The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Great Greek Franchising, LLC
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Great Greek Franchising, LLC ("TGG") · Department of Financial Protection and Innovation of the State of California
“TGG entered into a consent order with the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation of the State of California on August 9, 2021. The matter is captioned In the Matter of: The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Great Greek Franchising, LLC. The Commissioner found that TGG removed a condition of registration that was previously imposed on the franchisor, which required”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In settlement of the matter, TGG agreed to desist and refrain from the violations of Corporations Code section(s) 31200, 31203, and Rule 310.122.1, pay an administrative penalty, offer rescission to each of the franchisees who were offered and sold a franchise from October 18, 2018 to August 20, 2020, and attend continuing education.”
In the Matter of: The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Great Greek Franchising, LLC and UFG Group, Inc. dba United Franchise Group
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Great Greek Franchising, LLC (TGG), Graze Craze Franchising, LLC (GCZ) and UFG Group, Inc. dba United Franchise Group (UFG) · Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
“On March 4, 2022, TGG, GCZ, and UFG entered into consent orders with the State of California, and its Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, as it relates to alleged violations which occurred at a trade show in California. The matters are captioned In the Matter of: The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Great Greek Franchising, LLC”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “As required by the consent orders, TGG, GCZ, and UFG agreed to desist and refrain from the violations of Corporations Code section(s) 31110, 31201, and 31204, pay an administrative penalty of $5,000 each, send a Notice of Consent Order to TGG franchisees, and contract with an independent monitor for up to three years to assist with developing, implementing, and reviewing policies and procedures of its franchise ...”

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 Signarama verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls