In the Connecticut arbitration case against Byrider, what specific actions are alleged against the Byrider Franchising Parties?

ive office of JAMS. The arbitration demand alleges that certain Byrider Franchising Parties fraudulently induced claimants to (i) take certain actions after entering into their franchise agreement with Byrider Franchising, including select and develop a site for the dealership and enter into lender agreements and (ii) later enter into a mutual termination agreement of the franchise agreement. Claimants also allege that Byrider Franchising breached the franchise agreement by providing insufficient training and failing to hire qualified candidates for the franchised dealership. They further allege that suggested suppliers failed to provide product and that another nearby Byrider Franchising franchisee encroached on customer sales. Claimants assert claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, improper termination, and violations of Indiana, Rhode Island, and Connecticut franchise investment and/or relationship statutes and Indiana and Rhode Island deceptive trade practices statutes. Claimants seek unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages, arbitration costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On September 1, 2017, Byrider Franchising asserted a counterclaim against the claimants for breach of the franchise agreement and personal guarantee arising out of their failure to operate the franchised dealership for the franchise agreement's full twenty-year term. Byrider Franchising seeks damages of at least $2 million, and all of the Byrider Franchising Parties seek their costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by

Source: Item 3 — Litigation (FDD pages 15–19)