FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Twin Peaks litigation history

What Twin Peaks 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

One pending putative class action securities lawsuit (Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands, Inc.) alleging false and misleading statements regarding government investigations. Two concluded Virginia state regulatory matters involving incorrect financial statements and unlicensed franchise sales.

Item 3 (litigation) · 4 matters disclosed · 1 pending listed

Litigation cases

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (1)

Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen
pending
Brought by a third party · FAT Brands, Inc. · filed 2024-06-07 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:24-cv-04775-MWF-MAA
“… (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-04775-MWF-MAA).”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (3)

Robert J. Matthews, et al., v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick (In re FAT Brands Inc. Securities Litigation)
settled
Brought by a third party · FAT Brands, Inc. · filed 2022-03-18 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:22-cv-01820
“Robert J. Matthews, et al., v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:22-cv-01820).”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc. (SEC-2022-00034)
settled
Government or regulatory action · Fatburger North America, Inc. (FBNA) · Virginia State Corporation Commission, Division of Securities and Retail Franchising · SEC-2022-00034
“Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc. (Case No. SEC-2022-00034).”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under the Settlement Order, to which FBNA consented (without admitting or denying the allegations) on May 13, 2023, FBNA agreed: (a) to offer the affected franchisees an opportunity to rescind their franchises; (b) to pay $27,000 to the Commonwealth of Virginia; and (3) not to violate the Virginia franchise law in the future.”
Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc. (SEC-2022-0042)
settled
Government or regulatory action · Fatburger North America, Inc. (FBNA) · Virginia State Corporation Commission, Division of Securities and Retail Franchising · SEC-2022-0042
“Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc. (Case No. SEC-2022-0042, Settlement Order entered February 21, 2025, Final Order entered April 23, 2025).”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Without admitting or denying the allegations, FBNA made an offer of settlement in the amount of $5,000 in civil penalty and $500 to defray the costs of investigation.”

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

No bankruptcy/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 Twin Peaks verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls