FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

The UPS Store litigation history

What The UPS Store 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: 9; 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

Nine active or recently-settled cases, predominantly putative class actions alleging franchisees (and TUPSS) overcharged state-regulated notary fees (Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey x2, Illinois), plus a legacy 2003 class action re: Mail Boxes Etc. rebranding (settled $4.2M for 143 centers plus $112,500 individual settlement), a receiver's suit alleging notary-related aiding of a Ponzi scheme (settlement being finalized), a former franchisee's territory/non-compete dispute (Newlite), and a franchisee-vs-franchisee social media dispute where TUPSS settled for $28,900.

Item 3 (litigation) · 9 matters disclosed · 6 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (6)

Jessica Lee v. Jana Daniels, and its related case, Jessica Lee and JBL Investments Company v. The UPS Store, Inc.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2024 · Cook County Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · 2024L012057 and 1:26-cv-02716
“Jessica Lee v. Jana Daniels (Cook County Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 2024L012057)”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Daniels and TUPSS entered into a confidential settlement agreement and mutual release in which TUPSS agreed to pay Danials $28,900 in exchange for her dismissal of all claims against TUPSS with prejudice.”
Newlite Holdings Inc. v. The UPS Store, Inc.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2023-09-26 · Superior Court of California, County of San Diego · 37-2023-00041687-CU-BT-CTL
“… (Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2023-00041687-CU-BT-CTL)”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “A jury trial is currently set for July 17, 2026.” (page 18)
Barbara McLaren, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. The UPS Store, Inc., Turquoise Terrapin LLC formerly d/b/a The UPS Store #4122, RK & SP Services LLC formerly d/b/a The UPS Store #4122, and Hamilton Pack N' Ship LLC
pending
Brought by a third party · filed 2020-05-15 · New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, later United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
“Barbara McLaren, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. The UPS Store, Inc., Turquoise Terrapin LLC formerly d/b/a The UPS Store #4122”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The McLaren and Tripicchio cases have now been consolidated for all purposes and are pending in federal court.”
Reba Shavers, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. The UPS Store, Inc. and Rex & Monica Ingram d/b/a The UPS Store #7181
pending
Brought by a third party · filed 2020-07-24 · Cook County Circuit Court, Chancery Division, Illinois
“Reba Shavers, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. The UPS Store, Inc. and Rex & Monica Ingram d/b/a The UPS Store #7181”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Now that the appeal has been decided, the case will continue to be litigated before the trial court.” (page 17)
Vincent Tripicchio, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. The UPS Store, Inc., JB & A Enterprises, Inc.
pending
Brought by a third party · filed 2020-11-16 · New Jersey Superior Court, Burlington County, later United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
“Vincent Tripicchio, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. The UPS Store, Inc., JB & A Enterprises, Inc.”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The McLaren and Tripicchio cases have now been consolidated for all purposes and are pending in federal court.”
Alysson Mills, in Her Capacity as Receiver for Arthur Lamar Adams and Madison Timber Properties, LLC v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al.
pending
Brought by a third party · filed 2019-05-23 · United States District Court for the S.D. Miss. · 3:19-cv-364-CWR-FKB
“Alysson Mills, in Her Capacity as Receiver for Arthur Lamar Adams and Madison Timber Properties, LLC v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al.”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “the parties reached an agreement in principle and are currently working to finalize the terms of the settlement.”

Concluded (3)

Kevin Richardson II, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons v. The UPS Store, Inc. and J&V Logistics LLC d/b/a The UPS Store
dismissed
Brought by a third party · filed 2016-08-30 · Essex County Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1677CV01328, removed to 1:18-cv-12338-ADB
“Kevin Richardson II, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons v. The UPS Store, Inc. and J&V Logistics LLC d/b/a The UPS Store”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On October 28, 2020, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion and order” (page 15)
Teresa Long, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons v. The UPS Store, Inc. and The Britt-Tiff Company d/b/a The UPS Store #3152
settled
Brought by a third party · filed 2015-02-12 · Jefferson Circuit Court, Kentucky · 15-CI-000695
“Teresa Long, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons v. The UPS Store, Inc. and The Britt-Tiff Company d/b/a The UPS Store #3152”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On June 7, 2021, the Court entered an order finally approving the settlement.”
Morgate LLC, et al. vs. Mail Boxes Etc., Inc.; BSG Holdings Inc.; BSG Holdings Subsidiary Inc.; United Parcel Service, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; United Parcel Service, Inc., an Ohio Corporation; United Parcel Service, Inc., a New York Corporation; Garcher Enterprises, Inc.; Gary and Cheryl Willi
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2003-04-25 · Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles · BC 294647
“Morgate LLC, et al. vs. Mail Boxes Etc., Inc.; BSG Holdings Inc.; BSG Holdings Subsidiary Inc.; United Parcel Service, Inc., a Delaware Corporation”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “We thereafter settled the claims of the individual plaintiff (the class representative) with a payment of $112,500, and the action was dismissed with prejudice on August 30, 2018.” (page 14)

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

$4.2M class-action settlement (2013), routine matters

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 The UPS Store verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls