FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2024 filing
Two Hands Corn Dogs litigation history
What Two Hands Corn Dogs disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2024 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
- 3
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest disclosed settlement
- $45K
- As stated in Item 3
- Bankruptcy (Item 4)
- None
- Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer
- Filing year
- 2024
- Disclosures cover the prior ten years
Extracted from the 2024 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 3: litigation
One prior civil action (2LB Brothers, Inc. v. Link International, LLC, et al., San Diego Superior Court, filed Oct 2020, breach of contract/fraud over the 'Myungrang Hot Dog' license; settled April 2021 for $45,000). Two California administrative consent orders (May 2024) with the Dept. of Financial Protection and Innovation: one against Link International/Donghun Yoo for selling 13 unregistered franchises ($35,000 penalty), and one against Two Hands America, Inc. and Donghun Yoo for failure to timely notify/disclose the 2LB lawsuit ($5,000 penalty).
Disclosure signals that moved the score
How this shows up in the verdict
- Going concern status is FALSE — fundamental viability question about franchisor operations
- Regulatory violations in California: unregistered franchise sales and failure to disclose litigation demonstrates compliance failures and investor risk
- Trademark misuse litigation ($45k settlement) suggests brand integrity and IP protection concerns
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?