BRICKS 4 KIDZ Franchise Lawsuits
Bricks 4 Kidz franchise lawsuits, related litigation and government actions, including consent orders, from the 2015 Bricks 4 Kids Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) are included below. If you’re familiar with the Bricks 4 Kidz franchise opportunity, please share a comment below.
(UnhappyFranchisee.Com) The Bricks 4 Kidz franchise, like all franchises being sold in the U.S., is required to list pending lawsuits, lawsuits involving the franchise relationship (past year), prior lawsuits, and current government injunctive or restrictive actions.
Here is the litigation listed in the 2015 Bricks 4 Kidz FDD (Franchise Disclosure Document).
We do not know why the terms of the settlement agreements are not included, since the Federal Trade Commission states that “If a formal settlement agreement must be disclosed, then all material terms of the settlement must be disclosed, whether or not the agreement is confidential.”
Question for Bricks 4 Kidz management: Why aren’t the terms of the settlements disclosed in your FDD?
ITEM 3 BRICKS 4 KIDZ LITIGATION
(i) Katherine Daniels and Susan Zachmann v. Digicom Specialties Franchise Company, LLC (DSFC), Averil Johnson, and Brian Pappas (Civil Action Number 2009C016761 9), Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia. On May 8, 2009, Plaintiffs filed suit against DSFC, Averil Johnson, and Brian Pappas, alleging breach of contract and other counts. Pappas has denied all allegations. The parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement.
(ii) BFK Franchise Company v. Robin Staples (Civil Action Number CA-1 1-1595), Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, St. Johns County, Florida. On September 29, 201 I, we filed a suit against Robin Staples, alleging that Ms. Staples violated a non-compete clause in a license agreement that we entered into with Ms. Staples in 20 I0, and misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information. Ms. Staples responded by filing, on October 31, 2011, an action entitled Robin Staples v. BFK Franchise Company, LLC (Civil Case No. 1 1-2-3761 5-0 SEA), Superior Court, King County, Washington, alleging that she did not violate the non-compete provision of the referenced license agreement. Effective June I5, 2012, we and Ms. Staples entered into a Settlement Agreement, providing for a mutual release, and an acknowledgment of the right to compete against each other, except that Ms. Staples may not teach or conduct engineering classes for children using Legos® outside of King and Snohomish Counties, Washington, for a period of 24 months beginning June 15, 2012.
(iii) Minds that Matter, LLC; Dave Calloway vs. BFK Franchise Comoanv. LLC; JP Development, LLC, et al. (Civil Action Number A-13-68287-B), Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada. On September 24, 2014, Minds that Matter, LLC, filed a complaint, naming, among others, BFK Franchise Company, LLC, as a defendant, alleging deceptive trade practices. The plaintiff elected not to serve BFK or any of the other defendants named in the complaint. Prior to filing the complaint, plaintiff had been informed by BFK that plaintiff was in breach of its franchise agreement. A settlement agreement has been executed between the parties, and the plaintiff has dismissed the case with prejudice.
(iv) Kristena Bins-Turner, et al. v. BFK Franchise Company, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-769-J- 34MCR, U.S. District Court of Middle District of Florida, filed July I,2014. A franchisee, Back and 4th, LLC and its owner, Kristena Bins-Turner, sued to try to obtain a declaratory judgment declaring that the franchisee is not in breach of its franchise agreements based on its operation of businesses in addition to its franchised "Bricks 4 Kidz" business, and the use of the "Bricks 4 Kidz®" mark on a website operated by its affiliate. Pursuant to a settlement agreement (under which neither party was held liable), this case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on November 4, 2014.
Governmental Actions:
(i) Washington State Consent Order Number S-1 1-0617-1 1-COOI. On July 26, 2011 , we entered into a Consent Order with the Washington Department of Institutions, Securities Division, whereby we agreed not to offer franchises for sale in the State of Washington. Such agreement applied until such time as we were approved to offer franchises for sale in the State of Washington. On September 23, 2011, we were granted authority to offer and sell franchises in the State of Washington under Permit No. 70014808.
(ii) ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE {AOD) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAW INVESTOR PROTECTION BUREAU – AOD # 12-027. In April 2012, we entered into an ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE with the State of New York. We have neither adm itted nor denied the Findings of Law in the AOD wh ich states that we sold two franchises in the State of New York without registering our franchise offering prospectus or applying for an exemption with the Office of the Attorney General, subject to the provisions of the New York Franchise Sales Act. We agreed not to sell any franchises in New York until our franchise application had been approved. We also agreed to offer a right of rescission to our two New York State franchisees. Our franchise application was approved by the State of New York on April 16, 2012.
Other than the actions listed above, no litigation is required to be disclosed in this Item.
ALSO READ:
BRICKS 4 KIDZ Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) Free Download
BRICKS 4 KIDS Franchise Complaints
FRANCHISE DISCUSSIONS by Company
ARE YOU A BRICKS 4 KIDS FRANCHISE OWNER OR FRANCHISEE? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE BRICKS 4 KIDS FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY? SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.
TAGS: Bricks 4 Kidz, Bricks 4 Kidz franchise lawsuits, Bricks 4 Kiz litigation, Bricks 4 Kids, Bricks 4 Kids franchise, Bricks 4 Kidz franchise, Bricks 4 Kidz franchise disclosure document, Bricks 4 Kidz FDD, LEGO franchise, LEGO franchise opportunity, franchise complaints, BFK Franchise Company, Seed Capital, Brian Pappas, Dan O’Donnell, unhappy franchisee