What specific damages were sought by the defendants in their counterclaims against Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC, and how does it relate to Crowne Plaza?
Crowne_Plaza Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
lb County, Georgia, Civil Action File No. 20A83898 (December 11, 2020).*
On December 11, 2020, Holiday filed a lawsuit against the defendants seeking liquidated damages and unpaid system fees owed under a Crowne Plaza® license agreement that Holiday terminated as a result of the licensee's failure to pay amounts owed to Holiday under the agreement. On April 30, 2021, the defendants filed counterclaims against Holiday alleging Holiday imposed unreasonable renovation requirements on the licensee related to the subject hotel and required renovations outside the scope of the requirements of the applicable agreements. The defendants asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of quasi-contract, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and attorneys' fees. Holiday believes the allegations to be meritless and is defending vigorously. On June 1, 2021, Holiday filed a motion to dismiss all of the Defendants' counterclaims, which motion remains pending. On April 18, 2022, the State Court transferred the case, including Holiday's pending motion to dismiss, to the Superior Court of DeKalb, County Georgia because the Defendants' counterclaims include an equitable claim that requires Superior Court Jurisdiction. The case is currently pending in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia under Civil Action No. 22CV4560.
Class Action Lawsuits:
Park 80 Hotels, LLC, PL Hotels, LLC, PH Lodging Tomball, LLC, 110 Sunport, LLC, and Synergy Hotels, LLC, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC and Six Continents Hotels, Inc. d/b/a InterContinental Hotels Group, Case No. 25-10068 (11th Cir. January. 6, 2025).
Holiday, SCH, and the IHG Owner's Association were named defendants in seven class action lawsuits filed in 2021 by putative classes of Holiday licensees in Connecticut, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. Each of the lawsuits allege that Holiday and SCH engages in unlawful and otherwise improper franchise business practices, including, imposing unreasonable products, services and requirements and receiving improper kickbacks from required purchases. Specifically, the lawsuits assert causes of action including breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory judgment, violation of the Sherman Act, and a demand for an accounting. The New Jersey and Pennsylvania class action lawsuits have since been dismissed. Neither Holiday nor SCH paid any amounts in connection with the dismissal of these class action lawsuits. The five lawsuits that remain are:
1.
Source: Item 3 — Litigation (FDD pages 16–27)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 Crowne Plaza Franchise Disclosure Document, there are several instances where defendants in lawsuits filed by Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC (Holiday) have asserted counterclaims. These counterclaims often arise in response to Holiday's lawsuits against franchisees for issues such as unpaid fees or termination of license agreements. The damages sought by the defendants in these counterclaims vary depending on the specific allegations.
In one instance, a counterclaim was filed against Holiday alleging that Holiday imposed unreasonable renovation requirements on a Crowne Plaza licensee, requiring renovations outside the scope of the applicable agreements. The defendants asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of quasi-contract, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and attorneys' fees. In another case, after Holiday filed suit against a Crowne Plaza licensee for unpaid system fees and liquidated damages, the defendants counterclaimed alleging breach of contract, failure to provide consultation and advice, and misrepresentation.
In a separate case involving a Holiday Inn & Suites, Holiday's counterclaims against the licensee sought liquidated damages, other unpaid amounts owed under the license, interest, and attorneys' fees, exceeding $2.1 million total. Additionally, in a case involving the Crowne Plaza Columbus North – Worthington and the Crowne Plaza Syracuse, the plaintiffs (licensees) asserted a breach of contract claim against Holiday related to a proposed sale of the hotels and alleged interference with the transaction. They also claimed Holiday imposed required vendors and received improper "kickbacks." The lawsuit sought actual damages, treble damages, rescission of the license agreements, declaratory judgment, interest, and expenses of litigation. These examples illustrate the types of counterclaims and damages that franchisees or licensees may seek when facing legal action from Holiday.