FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Two Men and a Junk Truck litigation history

What Two Men and a Junk Truck 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: 3; 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 settled cases involving affiliates (Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. and Dunkin' Brands, Inc.) regarding no-poaching provisions in franchise agreements. Both cases involved multiple state attorney generals. No direct litigation against the franchisor.

Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (3)

New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (DBI, our affiliate) · filed 2019-09-26 · N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County · 451787/2019
“… N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County, Case No. 451787/2019, filed September 26, 2019.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
The People of the State of California v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc.
settled
Government or regulatory action · Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (ARG, our affiliate) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09397
“… California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09397, filed March 19, 2019.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
The People of the State of California v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.
judgment
Government or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (DBI, our affiliate) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09597
“… California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09597, filed on March 19, 2019.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

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

Litigation relates only to affiliates, no monetary payment - low weight

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 Two Men and a Junk Truck verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls