What remedies are the Nickle Plaintiffs seeking from Bft and related entities in the Nickle Acquisition Lawsuit?
Bft Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
This action was filed by Nickle Acquisition LLC ("Nickle Acquisition"), a former franchisee of the BFT and CycleBar franchise brands, and its purported owners, Michael D. Nickle and Jana Nickle ("Nickles" together with Nickle Acquisition, "Nickle Plaintiffs"), asserting that one or more of XFI, CB, CB SPV, BFT, BFT SPV, Xponential, Xponential Intermediate Holdings LLC, Assetco, H&W Franchise Intermediate Holdings LLC, LAG FIT, Inc., H&W Investco LP, H&W Investco II LP, MGAG LLC, Anthony Geisler, Mark Grabowski, Trevor Lucas, Lou DeFrancisco, Ryan Junk, Sarah Luna, Lance Freeman, Kristie Lavasile, and Navitas Credit Corp. (collectively, the "Nickle Defendants"): (a) violated the California Franchise Investment Law for allegedly (i) failing to disclose directors, principal officers, and individuals with management responsibility and litigation and material terms of settlements in Franchise Disclosure Documents; (ii) willfully making untrue statements regarding franchisee's estimated initial investment and time to open studios in the in Franchise Disclosure Documents; and (iii) failing to timely disclose the Franchise Disclosure Documents; (b) willfully made untrue financial performance representations and other representations and failing to disclose financial performance representations in Franchise Disclosure Documents; (c) breached the franchise agreements and covenant of good faith and fair dealing by allegedly undercutting membership sales; (d) made fraudulent omissions by allegedly failing to disclose kickbacks, financial relationships, lack of standard due diligence, and material facts regarding the Xponential franchise system; and (e) committed fraudulent inducement by allegedly making misrepresentations regarding the Castle Pines CycleBar studio performance. Nickle Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the franchise agreements, including the arbitration provisions, are void and unenforceable, and rescission of the franchise agreements, actual and special damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 14–18)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Bft's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the Nickle Plaintiffs, which include Nickle Acquisition LLC and its owners, Michael D. Nickle and Jana Nickle, are seeking several remedies in their lawsuit against Bft and related entities. The lawsuit, filed on February 3, 2025, alleges violations of the California Franchise Investment Law, breach of franchise agreements, fraudulent omissions, and fraudulent inducement.
The remedies the Nickle Plaintiffs are pursuing include a declaratory judgment that the franchise agreements, including the arbitration provisions, are void and unenforceable. They are also seeking rescission of the franchise agreements, which would essentially undo the agreements as if they never happened.
In addition to these equitable remedies, the Nickle Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. These include actual and special damages to compensate them for financial losses they allegedly suffered as a result of the defendants' actions. They are also seeking attorneys' fees, costs, and interest, which would cover the expenses they incurred in bringing the lawsuit. This information is relevant for prospective franchisees as it highlights potential legal and financial risks associated with the Bft franchise.