According to the Body20 FDD, what is the name of the Yoga Six Lawsuit?

rest. The AKT Defendants have all filed a demurrer to 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 action was filed by two Yoga Six® franchisees and their owners, including Enlightened Armadillo, Inc., Snug Holding Company LLC, Mark Hrubant, Ella Hrubant, and Melinda Sung (collectively, the "Y6 Plaintiffs") against (i) Y6 and Yoga Six Franchise SPV, LLC; (ii) the Xponential Entities; (iii) the H&W Entities; (iv) LAG Fit, Inc.; (v) MGAG LLC; and (vi) 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, (i) through (vi), the "Y6 Defendants"). The Y6 Plaintiffs alleged that one or more of the Y6 Defendants (a) violated pre-sale disclosure obligations under the California Franchise Investment Law by failing to provide a compliant Franchise Disclosure Document, making statements that they contend were erroneous or prohibited, and failing to disclose information that they contend necessitated disclosure; (b) fraudulently induced them to invest in franchises; (c) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (as to the Yoga Six entities only); and (d) engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices. The Y6 Plaintiffs seek (1) declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the enforcement of the mandatory arbitration provisions in their franchise agreements; (2) rescission of their franchise agreements; (3) actual and special damages; and (4) attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. The Y6 Defendants have all filed a demurrer to the complaint.
• Nickle Acquisition, LLC, et al v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., et al., filed February 3, 2025, Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2025-01459041- CU-AT-CXC. This action was filed by a CycleBar® and BFT® franchisee and its owners, Nickle Acquisition LLC, Michael Nickle, and Jana Nickle, (collectively, the "Nickle Plaintiffs") against (i) BFT Franchise Holdings, LLC and BFT Franchise SPV, LLC; (ii) CycleBar Franchising, LLC and CycleBar Franchising SPV, LLC; (iii) the Xponential Entities and Xponential Holdings LLC; (iv) H&W Investco LP and H&W Investco II LP; (v)

LAG Fit, Inc.; (vi) MGAG LLC; (vii) Anthony Geisler, Mark Grabowski, Trevor Lucas, Ryan Junk, Lou Defrancisco, Sarah Luna, Lance Freeman, and Kristie Lavasile; and (viii) Navitas Credit Corp. (collectively, (i) through (viii), the "Nickle Defendants"). The Nickle Plaintiffs allege that one or more of the Nickle Defendants (a) violated pre-sale disclosure obligations under the California Franchise Investment Law by failing to provide a compliant Franchise Disclosure Document, making statements that they contend were erroneous or prohibited, and failing to disclose information that they contend necessitated disclosure; (b) fraudulently induced them to invest in franchises; (c) breached the Franchise Agreement; (d) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (e) made fraudulent omissions. The Nickle Plaintiffs seek (1) declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the enforcement of the mandatory arbitration provisions in their franchise agreements; (2) rescission of their franchise agreements; (3) actual and special damages; and (4) attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. The Nickle Defendants will soon be filing a demurrer to the complaint.

American Health Concepts, LLC and Yaqim Lalani v. Yoga Six Franchise, LLC, Xponential Fitness, LLC, Anthony Geisler, and Lindsay Junk, filed December 11, 2024, Superior Court of Dekalb County, State of Georgia, Case No. 24CV11069. A former Yoga Six® franchisee and its owner filed this action against Y6, Xponential, the former Chief Executive Officer of Xponential, Anthony Geisler, and the President of Y6, Lindsay Junk. Contending that the Franchise Disclosure Document that Y6 provided to them in connection with their signing of a Yoga Six® development agreement and franchise Agreement in 2019 failed to include certain disclosures required by the Federal Trade Commission Franchise Rule, plaintiffs allege that (i) (a) defendants violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, for which plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of $430,600, and (b) the development agreement was void for lack of consideration, for which plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of $135,000;

Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 13–17)