Besides the disclosed actions, is there any other litigation required to be disclosed in Item 3 for Basecamp Fitness?
Basecamp_Fitness Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
Director for BFLLC from September 2019 to November 2021.
ITEM 3 LITIGATION
There is no litigation required to be disclosed in the Item regarding the Basecamp Fitness brand.
The following disclosures relate to our affiliates, TBM and TBMLLC, in connection with the offering of boutique fitness studios that offer barre-based exercise classes under the name The Bar Method®:
Illinois v. The Bar Method Franchising Inc. and The Bar Method Inc. (Case No. 2009CH 0125, Seventh Judicial Circuit of Illinois, filed February 9, 2009). The Illinois Attorney General brought this action against Defendants alleging the agreement between TBM and an Illinois resident that TBM assigned to TBMLLC in January 2008 constituted a franchise that was not registered under the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act, and that TBM did not provide a franchise disclosure document to the operator as that statute requires. On February 9, 2009, Defendants agreed to the entry of a Final Judgment and Consent Decree in which, while not admitting any liability for any violations, Defendants agreed to the entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from offering or selling franchises in Illinois without being registered as a franchisor or failing to provide the franchise disclosure document to residents of Illinois as the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act requires. TBMLLC also agreed to offer rescission of the agreement to the Illinois operator and to the payment of penalties and costs to the State of Illinois in the amount of $5,000. The Illinois operator did not accept the offer of rescission and its agreement continues in effect.
In the Matter of the Investigation by Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, of The Bar Method Inc. and Carl Diehl (Assurance No. 08-108). On April 2, 2009, TBM and Mr. Diehl, as its Vice President, entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance ("AOD") under which, without admitting any violation of the law, they agreed to offer rescission of an agreement that TBM signed in New York without being registered to sell franchises in that state. As part of the AOD, TBM and Mr. Diehl agreed to comply with the provisions of the New York Franchises Act and not to sell franchises in New York without a current registration. TBM also paid to the State of New York the sum of $2,500. The New York operator did not accept th
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 13–14)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Basecamp Fitness's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, there is no litigation required to be disclosed in Item 3 regarding the Basecamp Fitness brand itself. However, the document does disclose litigation related to Basecamp Fitness's affiliates, TBM and TBMLLC, specifically concerning the offering of boutique fitness studios under The Bar Method® name.
Specifically, the Illinois Attorney General brought an action against The Bar Method Franchising Inc. and The Bar Method Inc., alleging unregistered franchise activity. This resulted in a Final Judgment and Consent Decree where the defendants, without admitting liability, agreed to a permanent injunction against offering or selling franchises in Illinois without proper registration and disclosure. TBMLLC also agreed to offer rescission to an Illinois operator and pay $5,000 in penalties and costs to the State of Illinois. The operator, however, did not accept the rescission offer.
Additionally, the New York Attorney General investigated The Bar Method Inc. and its Vice President, Carl Diehl, leading to an Assurance of Discontinuance (AOD). Under the AOD, without admitting any violation, they agreed to offer rescission of an agreement signed in New York without proper registration. They also agreed to comply with the New York Franchises Act and not to sell franchises in New York without registration, and paid $2,500 to the State of New York. Similar to the Illinois case, the New York operator did not accept the rescission offer.