In the Connecticut arbitration case, what specific individuals are included in the 'Byrider Franchising Parties'?
Byrider Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
onger a franchisee.
H. Jeffrey Baker, et al. v. Byrider Franchising, LLC, et al., JAMS Arbitration, Boston Division, Case No: 14000. On July 21, 2017, the former franchisees of a Byrider
dealership in Branford, Connecticut, CT102 LLC and Sixela LLC, and personal guarantor of those entities' franchise agreement, H. Jeffrey Baker, initiated an arbitration demand against Byrider Franchising, J.D. Byrider Systems, LLC, Byrider Holding Corp., Brad M. Malott, Michael K. Maenhout, Jeffrey B. Higgins, Jack J. Humbert, Thomas L. Welter, Jeffrey L. Anderson, Shannon Aldridge, Stephen J. Peterson, Jesse Rogers, Keoni Schwartz, Kevin Mason, and other former employees (collectively, the "Byrider Franchising Parties") with the Boston administrative 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 them in this matter. JAMS preliminary ruled that the final hearing will be held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at a date to be determined. Effective May 1, 2018, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement under which Byrid
Source: Item 3 — Litigation (FDD pages 15–19)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Byrider's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, in the Connecticut arbitration case initiated by Jeffrey Baker, the 'Byrider Franchising Parties' include Byrider Franchising, J.D. Byrider Systems, LLC, Byrider Holding Corp., Brad M. Malott, Michael K. Maenhout, Jeffrey B. Higgins, Jack J. Humbert, Thomas L. Welter, Jeffrey L. Anderson, Shannon Aldridge, Stephen J. Peterson, Jesse Rogers, Keoni Schwartz, Kevin Mason, and other former employees. This arbitration, held with the Boston administrative office of JAMS, alleges fraudulent inducement and breach of contract by Byrider Franchising Parties.
The claimants in the arbitration case allege that the Byrider Franchising Parties fraudulently induced them to take certain actions after entering into their franchise agreement, such as selecting a site for the dealership and entering into lender agreements, and later entering into a mutual termination agreement of the franchise agreement. They also claim that Byrider breached the franchise agreement by not providing sufficient training and failing to hire qualified candidates for the franchised dealership. Additionally, they allege that suggested suppliers failed to provide product and that another nearby Byrider franchisee encroached on customer sales.
The claimants are seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages, arbitration costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. Byrider Franchising has asserted a counterclaim against the claimants for breach of the franchise agreement and personal guarantee, seeking damages of at least $2 million, along with costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. The final hearing for this case is scheduled to be held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at a date to be determined.