FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Skyhawks litigation history

What Skyhawks 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: 6; 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

All disclosed matters are governmental/administrative orders against predecessor SoccerTots Incorporated (and principal Edward Kent Gold) determining its license program constituted unregistered franchises: California Cease and Refrain Order (2008); Hawaii Consent Agreement ($1,000 fee, 2008); Maryland Consent Order (2008); Washington Consent Order (2008); Wisconsin Order of Prohibition/Cease and Refrain (2008); Virginia Settlement Order ($1,000 fee, 2010). All predate franchisor's acquisition; no current litigation required to be disclosed.

Item 3 (litigation) · 6 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

Other companies named (outside this franchise system)

Concluded (6)

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ex rel. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION v. SOCCERTOTS, INCORPORATED
settled
Government or regulatory action · SoccerTots Incorporated · filed 2010-03-10 · Virginia State Corporation Commission · SEC-2009-00123
“… at Richmond, Virginia, Case No. SEC-2009- 00123, March 10, 2010) The State of Virginia concluded that the license constituted a franchise agreement as defined by the Franchise Act and its corresponding regulations and the franchise should have been registered with the state.”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
CONSENT AGREEMENT, IN THE MATTER OF SOCCERTOTS, INCORPORATED
concluded
Government or regulatory action · SoccerTots Incorporated · filed 2008-10-17 · State of Hawaii, Securities Enforcement Branch, Business Registration Division, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs · SEU-2007-057
“… File No. SEU-2007-057, State of Hawaii, Securities Enforcement Branch, Business Registration Division, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, October 17, 2008) Based upon their review, the”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
CONSENT ORDER, IN THE MATTER OF SOCCERTOTS INCORPORATED
concluded
Government or regulatory action · SoccerTots Incorporated · filed 2008-05-19 · Maryland Securities Division · 2007-0600
“… Case No. 2007-0600, Maryland Securities Division, May 19, 2008) The State of Maryland sent a letter dated October 29, 2007 asking for information regarding licenses issued in the State of Maryland.”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
CONSENT ORDER, Order Number S-07-471-08-CO01
concluded
Government or regulatory action · SoccerTots Incorporated · filed 2008-12-03 · State of Washington, Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division · S-07-471-08-CO01
“… State of Washington, Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division, December 3, 2008) SoccerTots Incorporated received an inquiry letter from the State of Washington dated November 13, 2007 and SoccerTots Incorporated responded to that letter in detail.”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
ORDER OF PROHIBITION, File No. S-07147(FX)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · SoccerTots Incorporated and Mr. Gold · filed 2008-11-17 · Division of Securities, Department of Financial Institutions, State of Wisconsin · S-07147(FX)
“… Division of Securities, Department of Financial Institutions, State of Wisconsin, November 17, 2008) The State of Wisconsin concluded that the license program fell within the definition of “franchises” in Wisconsin and in its opinion, should have been registered with the state.”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
THE CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS COMMISSIONER v. SOCCERTOTS, INC. and EDWARD KENT GOLD
concluded
Government or regulatory action · SoccerTots Incorporated and Edward Kent Gold · filed 2008-04-03 · California Corporations Commissioner · CAS-37790
“… File No. CAS-37790, April 3, 2008) The State of California determined that the license program fell within the definition of “franchises” in California and should have been registered with the state.”Page 12 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?

Back to the Skyhawks verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls