FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
Taim Mediterranean Kitchen litigation history
What Taim Mediterranean Kitchen 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 & 4 at a glance
What the filing discloses
- Cases disclosed
- 1
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest disclosed settlement
- None stated
- Bankruptcy (Item 4)
- Disclosed
- Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer
- Filing year
- 2025
- Disclosures cover the prior ten years
Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 3: litigation
One Item 3 case: BC Licensing, LLC v. DMD Chicken, LLC et al. (D. Nev., No. 2:25-cv-00453), in which our officer Joshua Halpern was named in a counterclaim by a former Big Chicken (affiliate) franchisee alleging fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation; as of April 30, 2025 awaiting response to counterclaim.
Disclosed in the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 4: bankruptcy
In re Roti Restaurants, LLC, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 24-13827, filed August 23, 2024. Roti operated fast-casual restaurant chain; business failed due to rising costs, mixed location performance, and difficult market conditions. Plan confirmation order issued February 26, 2025.
Disclosure signals that moved the score
How this shows up in the verdict
- Going Concern statement is FALSE — indicates potential financial instability or undisclosed liabilities at franchisor level
- Officer litigation involving fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation allegations raises integrity concerns about management disclosures
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?