What is the name of the former Byrider dealership in Branford, Connecticut that initiated arbitration?
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.
Source: Item 3 — Litigation (FDD pages 15–19)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Byrider's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the former Byrider dealership in Branford, Connecticut that initiated arbitration was operated by CT102 LLC and Sixela LLC. H. Jeffrey Baker, the personal guarantor of the franchise agreement for these entities, also initiated the arbitration demand. The arbitration was filed on July 21, 2017, against Byrider Franchising and related entities.
The arbitration demand alleged fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among other claims. Byrider Franchising asserted a counterclaim against the franchisees for breach of the franchise agreement due to their failure to operate the dealership for the full twenty-year term, seeking damages of at least $2 million. However, the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement effective May 1, 2018, where Byrider Franchising agreed to pay the claimants $500,000 to settle all claims and counterclaims. The claimants agreed to de-identify the former franchised dealership and comply with the franchise agreement's post-termination noncompetition covenant.
This litigation history is important for prospective Byrider franchisees as it highlights potential disputes that can arise between Byrider and its franchisees, including issues related to training, supplier performance, and encroachment. It also demonstrates the potential for significant financial settlements and the enforcement of post-termination obligations. Franchisees should carefully review the franchise agreement and consider the risks and obligations involved before investing in a Byrider franchise.