Case Page


Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 08/27/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: August 24, 2018

According to the Complaint, FAT Brands, Inc. ("FAT Brands" or the "Company") is a multi-brand franchising company that acquires, markets, and develops fast casual and causal dining restaurant concepts including Fatburger, Buffalo’s Café, Buffalo’s Express, Ponderosa Steakhouse, and Bonanza Steakhouse.

Plaintiff's law firm issued a press release announcing the law suit. According to the press release, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) FAT Brands’ sales growth had significantly declined; (2) sales growth at Ponderosa & Bonanza was significantly below the level which FAT Brands had believed when it agreed to acquire those brands in March 2017; (3) the fast-casual dining sector was saturated and facing significant headwinds and a slowdown in growth, largely caused by customers fleeing to lower cost and quicker options; (4) FAT Brands’ free cash flow was less than its annual $5 million dividend obligations; (5) certain individual Defendants planned to merge Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. into FAT Brands following the IPO; (6) Fog Cutter Capital and certain individual Defendants that owned it had already once run Fog Cutter Capital/Fatburger into bankruptcy, resulting in its stock being delisted after attempting to go on an acquisition spree, much like the spree they were undertaking at FAT Brands at the time of the IPO; and (7) as a result, FAT Brands’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.


Sector: Services
Industry: Restaurants
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: FAT
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data

"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 18-CV-07469
JUDGE: Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez
DATE FILED: 08/24/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/24/2018
  1. Kaskela Law LLC
    201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650, Kaskela Law LLC, PA 19087
    484.258..1585. ·
  2. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
    355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2450, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 785-2610 (213) 226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available