In what court is the AKT Lawsuit, potentially relevant to Bft, being heard?

Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, et al. v. AKT Franchise, LLC, et al., filed August 30, 2023 (as amended on November 20, 2023), Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2023-01345433- CU-AT-CXC (the "AKT Lawsuit"). This action was filed by certain former AKT franchisees and their purported owners after AKT initiated an arbitration against and sought damages from certain of them for breaches of their franchise agreements. In addition to the relief described below, the plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to allow them to litigate their claims in this action rather than in the original arbitration proceedings initiated by AKT. In this action, one or more of the following parties: Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, Property Maintenance, Inc., 6pk Mason LLC, 6pk Liberty LLC, Teeny Turner LLC, S2 Fitness Enterprises, LLC, Soros & Associates, LLC, AdEdge Services Inc., Deanna Alfredo, Amanda Davis, Nisha Moeller, Samantha Cox, Suzanne Fischer, Nichole Soros, Michael Soros, Paul Dumas, Jodi Dumas and Laura Hannan (collectively, the "AKT Plaintiffs") assert that one or more of the following parties: AKT Franchise, LLC, AKT Franchise SPV, LLC, Assetco, Xponential, XFI, H&W Franchise Intermediate Holdings LLC, Xponential Intermediate Holdings LLC, H&W Investco LP, H&W Investco II LP, LAG Fit, Inc., MGAG LLC, Anthony Geisler, Mark Grabowski, Melissa

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)