Did the AKT Plaintiffs allege that Bft engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices?
Bft Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
Chordock, Elizabeth "Liz" Batterton Cooper, Alexander Cordova, Lance Freeman, Ryan Junk, Megan Moen, John Meloun, Sarah Luna, Tori Johnston, Justin LaCava, Bobby Tetsch, Brandon Wiles, Jason Losco, Brittney Holobinko, Amy Wehrkamp, Scott Svilich, Sarah Nolan, Emily Brown, Rachel Markovic, and Brenda Morris (collectively, the "AKT Defendants"): (a) violated pre-sale disclosure obligations under the California Franchise Investment Law, the Michigan Franchise Investment Law and the Florida Franchise Act by failing to provide a compliant Franchise Disclosure Document and failing to disclose certain information they contend was required to be disclosed by, and making certain statements they contend were incorrect and prohibited under, those laws some of which they contend were erroneous (the "Pre-Sale Disclosure Claims"); (b) fraudulently induced them to purchase franchises; (c) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (the "Covenant Claim"); (d) breached a purported agreement to provide certain financing; and (e) engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices. The AKT Plaintiffs seek rescission of various franchise agreements, actual and special damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest. AKT Defendants have been served with the complaint, and each AKT Defendant has filed a demurrer to the complaint and/or a motion to quash the complaint.
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 14–18)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Bft's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the AKT Plaintiffs did allege that Bft engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices. The plaintiffs in the AKT Lawsuit, which includes parties such as Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, Property Maintenance, Inc., and several individuals, made this claim against various parties, including AKT Franchise, LLC, and its affiliates.
Specifically, the AKT Plaintiffs' allegations are part of a broader legal action initiated after AKT sought damages from these franchisees for breaches of their franchise agreements. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to litigate their claims in court rather than through the original arbitration proceedings initiated by AKT.
This lawsuit involves multiple parties and complex legal claims, indicating potential risks and challenges for franchisees within the Bft franchise system. Prospective franchisees should carefully review the details of this litigation and seek legal counsel to understand the potential implications for their investment and business operations.