FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Snapology litigation history

What Snapology 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

Maryland Securities Commissioner administrative proceeding (2015-0429) concluded Snapology sold two unregistered franchises in Maryland; resolved via 2016 consent order requiring registration and rescission offer to remaining franchisee

Item 3 (litigation) · 4 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (1)

In the Matter of Snapology Community Programs, L.P. and its successor Snapology, LLC
concluded
Administrative Proceeding Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2015-0429
“… Administrative Proceeding Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2015-0429.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On January 15, 2016, the Commissioner and Snapology entered into a consent order whereby Snapology, without admitting or denying any violations of the law, agreed to: immediately and permanently cease from the offer and sale of franchises in violation of the Maryland franchise law; complete registration of its franchise offering in Maryland;”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (3)

Unleashed Services, LLC vs. Tom Pabin vs. Josh Wall
concluded
Brought by the franchisor · Unleashed Services, LLC · filed 2023-09-18 · 48th Judicial District of Tarrant County, Texas · 48-346174-23
“… 48th Judicial District of Tarrant County, Texas, bearing Cause No. 48-346174-23.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The suit was resolved on October 29, 2024 with Unleashed Brands, LLC buying back Mr. Pabin’s remaining ownership interests in Class 101 for two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars. No payment was made by Unleashed Brands, LLC or any other person or entity on the underlying claims in the lawsuit, all of which have been dismissed with prejudice.”
UATP Management, LLC v. Leap of Faith Adventures, LLC
concluded
Brought by the franchisor · UATP Management, LLC · filed 2018-07-09 · District Court of Tarrant County, Texas; Texas Court of Appeals · 017-300796-18
“… (District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 017-300796-18).”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “the case was dismissed with prejudice on September 2, 2022 following the execution of a confidential settlement agreement, wherein UATP and LOFA released all claims against each other without admission of any liability in exchange for a one-time payment of five million dollars to LOFA.”
The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Premier Franchising Group, LLC doing business as Premier Martial Arts International and/or Premier Martial Arts
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Premier Franchising Group, LLC (PMA) · California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
“The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Premier Franchising Group, LLC doing business as Premier Martial Arts International (“PMAI”) and/or Premier Martial Arts (“PMA”). On November 18, 2021, PMA entered into a consent order”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Pursuant to the consent order, PMA agreed to (1) refrain from violating Sections 31110 and 31200, (2) pay a $10,000 administrative penalty,”

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