FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Wag N Wash litigation history

What Wag N Wash 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: 5; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: None stated

Bankruptcy (Item 4): Disclosed; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2026; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

Affiliate PSP Franchising, LLC sued a terminated/non-renewed franchisee (SureFed Plus LC) and individuals for operating a competing independent pet store in violation of post-termination non-compete; defendants filed counterclaim seeking declaratory judgment that the non-compete is unenforceable. Matter pending.

Item 3 (litigation) · 5 matters disclosed · 4 pending listed

Litigation cases

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (4)

PSP Franchising, LLC v. SureFed Plus LC, William W. Vernon, Jr., William W. Vernon, Sr., Katherine Barksdale, and David Barksdale
pending
Brought against a franchisee · PSP Franchising, LLC · filed 2025 · US District Court Western District of Texas San Antonio Division · 5:25-cv-00544
“Case No. 5:25-cv-00544,US District Court Western District of Texas San Antonio Division. On or about May 16, 2025, PSP Franchising, LLC filed a complaint and request for a Temporary Restraining Order, alleging that, after the non-renewal of their franchise agreement, SureFed Plus LC is operating an independent pet store from the same premises as the former franchised business in violation of the”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it
- SureFed Plus LC, William W. Vernon, Jr., William W. Vernon, Sr., Katherine Barksdale, and David Barksdale v. PSP Franchising, LLC
  pending
  Brought by a franchisee · names an affiliate · PSP Franchising, LLC · filed 2025-05-16 · US District Court Western District of Texas San Antonio Division · 5:25-cv-00544-XR
  “The Defendants filed a counterclaim on May 16, 2025 SureFed Plus LC, William W. Vernon, Jr., William W. Vernon, Sr., Katherine Barksdale, and David Barksdale v. PSP Franchising, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00544-XR,US District Court Western District of Texas San Antonio Division alleging the post-termination non-compete provisions are unenforceable and asking the Court for a declaratory judgment in”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.
PSP Franchising, LLC v. Paw Babies Pet Supply, LLC and Jocelyn Harris
pending
Brought against a franchisee · PSP Franchising, LLC · 164th District Court, Harris County, Texas · 2025-47939
“… Cause No. 2025-47939, 164th District Court, Harris County, Texas”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
PSP Franchising, LLC v. Slim & Goldie, LLC and Keith R. Bogans
pending
Brought against a franchisee · PSP Franchising, LLC · Third Circuit Court, County of Wayne, Michigan · 25-017222-CB
“Additionally, PSP Franchising, LLC has filed the below business court complaints against former franchisees to recover unpaid monies owed to the former franchisor under a terminated franchise agreement. • PSP Franchising, LLC v. Slim & Goldie, LLC and Keith R. Bogans, Case No. 25-017222- CB, Third Circuit Court, County of Wayne, Michigan”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
PSP Franchising, LLC v. The Blind Sebastian Corporation and Steven P. Blitchington
pending
Brought against a franchisee · PSP Franchising, LLC · Third Circuit Court, County of Wayne, Michigan · 25-016431-CB
“… Case No. 25-016431-CB, Third Circuit Court, County of Wayne, Michigan”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (1)

PSP Franchising, LLC v. Paw & Tails, Inc. and Muhammad K. Awan
settled
Brought against a franchisee · PSP Franchising, LLC · Third Circuit Court, County of Wayne, Michigan · 25-017217-CB
“The Third Circuit Court, County of Wayne, Michigan issued an Order of Settlement and Dismissal on January 7, 2026 of the business court complaint, PSP Franchising, LLC v. Paw & Tails, Inc. and Muhammad K. Awan, Case No. 25-017217-CB, Third Circuit Court, County of Wayne, Michigan.”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

One proceeding above is indented under the matter it belongs to because the filing narrates them inside it — an appeal, a consolidated case, a related arbitration. Each carries its own quote and page. They are counted with their matter, not as extra matters, so this list and the 5 Item 3 discloses agree.

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.

Disclosed in the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 4: bankruptcy

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. On November 3, 2024, the Debtors (as defined in Item 1) filed voluntary petitions (the “Chapter 11 Cases”) for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District o

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

2 pending non-compete litigation matters; small 29-unit system

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 Wag N Wash verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls