factual

What is the current status of the complaint against the Bft AKT Defendants?

Bft Franchise · 2025 FDD

Answer from 2025 FDD Document

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.

Enlightened Armadillo, Inc., et al. v. Yoga Six Franchise, LLC, et al., filed November 22, 2023, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2023-01367265-CU-AT-CXC. This is an action filed by the same attorney who represents the AKT Plaintiffs in the AKT Lawsuit. The plaintiffs are two Yoga Six franchisees (Enlightened Armadillo, Inc. and Snug Holding Company LLC) and their purported owners (Mark Hrubant, Ella Hrubant, and Melinda Sung) (collectively, the "Y6 Plaintiffs") who assert essentially the same Pre-Sale Disclosure Claims (with respect only to the California Franchise Investment Law) and Covenant Claim (as to the Yoga Six entities only) against YS SPV, YS, Assetco, Xponential, XFI, Xponential Intermediate Holdings LLC, H&W Franchise Intermediate Holdings LLC, Lag Fit Inc., H&W Investco LP, H&W Investco II LP, MGAG LLC, Anthony Geisler, Mark Grabowski, Lindsay Junk, Nate Chang, Jason Losco, Lance Freeman, Ryan Junk, Megan Moen, John Meloun, Sarah Luna, Brenda Morris, and Justin LaCava (collectively, the "Y6 Defendants"). The Y6 Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the enforceability of the mandatory arbitration provisions in the franchise agreements, rescission of their franchise agreements, actual and special damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest. Y6 Defendants have been served with the complaint and all, except H&W Franchise Intermediate Holdings LLC, have filed a demurrer to the complaint and/or a motion to quash the complaint. The hearings on the demurrers to the complaint and the motions to quash the complaint are scheduled to take place on April 22, 2025.

*Nickle Acquisition LLC v. Xponential Fitness, Inc.

Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 14–18)

What This Means (2025 FDD)

According to Bft's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, a lawsuit, Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, et al. v. AKT Franchise, LLC, et al., was filed on August 30, 2023, and amended on November 20, 2023, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2023-01345433- CU-AT-CXC (the "AKT Lawsuit"). This action was initiated by former AKT franchisees and their owners after AKT started arbitration against them for breaches of their franchise agreements. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to litigate their claims in this action instead of the original arbitration proceedings initiated by AKT.

The plaintiffs, including Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, Property Maintenance, Inc., and others, allege that AKT Franchise, LLC, AKT Franchise SPV, LLC, and other related parties, including Anthony Geisler and Mark Grabowski, violated pre-sale disclosure obligations under franchise laws, fraudulently induced them to purchase franchises, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breached a purported agreement to provide certain financing, and 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. The AKT Defendants have been served with the complaint and have filed a demurrer to the complaint and/or a motion to quash the complaint.

Disclaimer: This information is extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document and is provided for research purposes only. It does not constitute legal or financial advice. Consult with a franchise attorney before making any investment decisions.