FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Snap-on litigation history

What Snap-on 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: 7; 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

3 pending: (1) 1960980 Ontario Inc./James Olsen v. Snap-on Tools of Canada Ltd. et al. - franchise rescission/misrepresentation claim, franchise terminated for abandonment; (2) Galindo/Reich v. Snap-on Tools Company LLC (CA) - misclassification class/representative action, settled for $2,350,000 (Aug 2024); (3) De La Pena/Young/Grenas v. Snap-on Tools Company LLC (CA, filed Jan 2026) - misclassification representative action, ongoing. No litigation filed by Snap-on against franchisees in FY2025. Concluded litigation includes Jacobson v. Snap-on ($138,000 settlement, 2016), GAP Enterprises/Nischan ($150,000, 2020), Hartmann ($800,000, 2020), and Carmack data-breach class action (settlement incl. up to $400,000 in claims, dismissed 2023) — all misclassification/labor-code or data-security matters.

Item 3 (litigation) · 7 matters disclosed · 2 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (1)

Salvadore De La Pena, Shawn Young, and Reginald Grenas v. Snap-on Tools Company LLC (CA)
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2026-01-30 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles · 26STCV-3388
“… This case was filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case 26STCV-3388) on January 30, 2026”Page 113 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Snap-on intends to vigorously defend their interests.”

Concluded (4)

Felipe Galindo and Leo Reich v. Snap-on Tools Company LLC (CA)
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2021-12-14 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles · 21STCV45419
“… This case was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case 21STCV45419) on December 14, 2021 as a class action”Page 113 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Pursuant to the settlement, Snap-on paid a total of $2,350,000 to the State of California, Mr. Galindo, Mr. Reich, counsel for Mr. Galindo and Mr. Reich, the representative members, and the class members.”
GAP Enterprises and George Nischan v. Snap-on Tools Company LLC, Snap-on Incorporated, Snap-on Credit LLC, Snap-on SecureCorp Inc., Snap-on Equipment Inc., Duke Snider and Keith Holland
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2019-07-10 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside · RIC1903737
“GAP Enterprises and George Nischan v. Snap-on Tools Company LLC, Snap-on Incorporated, Snap-on Credit LLC, Snap-on SecureCorp Inc., Snap-on Equipment Inc., Duke Snider and Keith Holland.”Page 114 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Snap-on paid Mr. Nischan and his counsel a total of $150,000 and the case was dismissed on March 10, 2020.”
Jeffrey Hartmann v. Snap-on Tools Company LLC and Snap-on Incorporated
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2019-04-08 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside · RIC1902297
“Jeffrey Hartmann v. Snap-on Tools Company LLC and Snap-on Incorporated.”Page 114 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case was closed on November 17, 2020.” (page 115)
Daniel Jacobson v. Snap-on Tools Company LLC and Snap-on Inc. (CA)
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2015-05-12 · United States District Court Northern District of California, San Francisco Division
“… This case was filed on May 12, 2015 in the United States District Court Northern District of California, San Francisco Division as a class action”Page 114 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “a confidential settlement agreement and mutual release was entered into in December, 2016 pursuant to which Snap-on paid Mr. Jacobson and his counsel $138,000.00.”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (1)

1960980 Ontario Inc. and James Olsen v. Snap-on Tools of Canada Ltd., Brian Ross and John Stewart
pending
Brought by a franchisee · Snap-on Tools of Canada Ltd. (SOTC), with Brian Ross and John Stewart of SOTC · filed 2019 · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
“1960980 Ontario Inc. and James Olsen v. Snap-on Tools of Canada Ltd., Brian Ross and John Stewart”Page 113 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Snap-on, Ross and Stewart intend to vigorously defend their interests.”

Concluded (1)

John Carmack v. Snap-on Incorporated. (WI)
settled
Brought by a third party · Snap-on Incorporated · filed 2022-06-15 · United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
“John Carmack v. Snap-on Incorporated. (WI).”Page 115 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 31, 2023.”

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.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

3 pending suits incl. rescission and $2,350,000 class settlement — low relative to 3,328 units
No bankruptcy, no going-concern

The verdict grade is FranchiseVerdict's editorial assessment across SBA loan performance, unit growth, revenue and disclosure signals. It is not investment advice.

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