FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Supreme Produce litigation history

What Supreme Produce 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: 8; 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

Two government enforcement actions: (1) Washington State - violation of Franchise Investment Protection Act for unauthorized franchise offerings and failure to disclose non-registration; consent order executed 11/25/2025 with $25,000 civil penalty and $1,000 investigative costs for franchisor, plus same amounts for affiliate GBC. (2) Maryland State - violation of Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law for failing to provide franchise disclosure document prior to executing independent contractor agreement on 8/4/2023 and 8/29/2024.

Item 3 (litigation) · 8 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (3)

In the Matter of Determining Whether there has been a violation of the Franchise Investment Protection Act of Washington by: Supreme Service Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Supreme Produce; and GBC Food Services, LLC
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2025 · Washington Department of Financial Institutions, Securities Division · S-25-4105-25-CO01
“Supreme Service Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Supreme Produce; and GBC Food Services, LLC (Order No.: S-25-4105-25-CO01). Proceeding filed by the State of Washington Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division (the “Securities Division”) concluded that,”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On November 25, 2025, we executed a consent order (the “Consent Order”) with the Securities Division whereby we and our Affiliate agreed to (i) cease and desist from offering or selling franchises in violation of WFIPA;”
In the Matter of Determining Whether there has been a violation of the Franchise Investment Protection Act of Washington by: Supreme Service Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Supreme Deli
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Washington Department of Financial Institutions, Securities Division · S-25- 3972-25-CO01
“Supreme Service Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Supreme Deli (Order No.: S-25- 3972-25-CO01). Proceeding filed by the State of Washington Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division (the “Securities Division”) concluded that we violated the Washington”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On July 16, 2025, we entered into a Consent Order whereby we agreed to cease and desist from violating the relevant provisions of the WFIPA and pay investigative costs of $1,500.”
In the Matter of The Securities Commissioner of Maryland v. Supreme Service Solutions, Inc., doing business as Supreme Deli
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Maryland Securities Commissioner
“In the Matter of The Securities Commissioner of Maryland v. Supreme Service Solutions, Inc., doing business as Supreme Deli.”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On September 17, 2025, we executed a Consent Order (the “Consent Order”) with the Securities Commissioner, whereby we agreed to (i) cease and desist from the offer and sale of franchises in violation of the Maryland Franchise Law;”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (5)

Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation’s Investigation of GBC Food Services, LLC, doing business as Yummi Sushi, Yummi Sauces, Toshimi, Calmon, and Sushi Sara
concluded
Government or regulatory action · GBC Food Services, LLC (our affiliate) · California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
“Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation’s Investigation of GBC Food Services, LLC, doing business as Yummi Sushi, Yummi Sauces, Toshimi, Calmon, and Sushi Sara.”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “We executed the DFPI’s Consent Order on October 18, 2024, agreeing to the fine amount and agreeing to cease and desist from violating California Franchise Investment Law and Corporations Code.” (page 14)
In the Matter of Determining Whether there has been a violation of the Franchise Investment Protection Act of Washington by: GBC Food Services, LLC d/b/a Yummi Sushi
concluded
Government or regulatory action · GBC Food Services, LLC (our affiliate) · Washington Department of Financial Institutions, Securities Division · S-21-3158-21-CO01
“Washington by: GBC Food Services, LLC d/b/a Yummi Sushi. Administrative Proceeding filed by the Washington Securities Division of the Department of Financial Institutions against GBC (Order No.: S-21-3158-21-CO01) alleging that, between 2019 and 2021, GBC”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On August 25, 2021, GBC entered into a Consent Order whereby it agreed to cease and desist from violating the WFIPA and pay investigative costs of $1,500.”
In the Matter of GBC Food Services, LLC, d/b/a Yummi Sushi, Yummi Sauces, Toshimi, Calmon, and Sushi Sara
concluded
Government or regulatory action · GBC Food Services, LLC (our affiliate) · Maryland Securities Commissioner
“… Administrative Proceeding filed by the State of Maryland Securities Commissioner (the”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On October 29, 2025, we executed a Consent Order (the “Consent Order”) with the Securities Commissioner, whereby we agreed to (i) cease and desist from the offer and sale of franchises in violation of the Maryland Franchise Law;” (page 13)
In the Matter of the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. GBC Food Services, LLC, doing business as Yummi Sushi, Yummi Sauces, Toshimi, Calmon, and Sushi Sara
concluded
Government or regulatory action · GBC Food Services, LLC (our affiliate) · California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
“In the Matter of the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. GBC Food Services, LLC, doing business as Yummi Sushi, Yummi Sauces, Toshimi, Calmon, and Sushi Sara.”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On July 8, 2025, GBC executed a new Consent Order with the DFPI, which incorporated and was supplemented by the Initial Consent Order, whereby GBC agreed to cease and desist from the offer and sale of franchises in violation of the FIL and to pay a reduced administrative penalty in the amount of $13,800 for our cooperation with the DFPI and our self- reporting.”
In the Matter of the State of Washington Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division v. GBC Food Services, LLC d/b/a Yummi Sushi
concluded
Government or regulatory action · GBC Food Services, LLC (our affiliate) · Washington Department of Financial Institutions, Securities Division · S-25-3964-25-CO01
“Securities Division v. GBC Food Services, LLC d/b/a Yummi Sushi (Order No. S-25-3964-25-CO01). Proceeding filed by the State of Washington Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division (the “Securities Division” concluded that GBC violated (i) the”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On October 7, 2025, GBC executed a second Consent Order (the “Second Consent Order”) with the Securities Division, whereby we agreed to (i) cease and desist from the offer and sale of franchises in violation of the WFIPA, (ii) pay a civil penalty of $20,000, and (iii) pay all investigative costs consisting of $5,000 to the Securities Division.”

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