FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
Two Men and a Truck litigation history
What Two Men and a 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
Three settled cases involving affiliates (Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. and Dunkin' Brands, Inc.) with state Attorneys General regarding no-poaching/non-solicitation provisions in franchise agreements and data security breach notification. All cases are settled with no admission of liability by affiliates. No impact on Two Men and a Truck franchisor or brand alleged.
Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed
Litigation cases
Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor
Concluded (3)
New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. · 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
Outcome: “Under consent order, DBI agreed to pay $650,000 in penalties and costs, issue certain notices and other types of communications to New York customers, and maintain a comprehensive information security program through September 2026, including precautions and response measures for credential-stuffing attacks.” (page 23)
The People of the State of California v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. · 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 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
The People of the State of California v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. · 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
- No franchisor litigation, no bankruptcy, no 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?