Pending Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 4 - Pending Litigation	The Company is a Defendant in a lawsuit styled Kari Heyser, Fred Eric Heyser and Meck Enterprises, LLC, et al v. Noble Roman’s, Inc. et al, filed in Superior Court in Hamilton County, Indiana in June 2008 (Cause No. 29D01 0806 PL 739). The Court issued an Order dated December 23, 2010 granting summary judgment in favor of the Company against all of the Plaintiffs. As a result, the Plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud against the Company and certain of its officers were determined to be without merit. Plaintiffs filed numerous motions and an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals, in an attempt to reverse the December 23, 2010 summary judgment. All of the motions failed and the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ last attempt to vacate the summary judgment award was their attempt to vacate the Order on the grounds of misconduct of third parties. On December 1, 2011, the Judge denied their motion and specifically found “that there was absolutely no evidence of misconduct” and the Court admonished Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel for making such unfounded allegations. The fraud charges against the Company and certain of its officers are dismissed entirely and Plaintiffs have no appeal rights remaining. The Company then filed a motion for sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney for the frivolous filings. On February 28, 2012, the Court granted the Company’s request for sanctions and ordered the Plaintiffs and their attorney to pay the Company $8,326 by April 23, 2012. Plaintiffs and their attorney have asked the Court to reconsider the grant of sanctions and requested a hearing. The Judge has set a hearing for May 23, 2012. The Company obtained summary judgment on its counterclaims against the Plaintiffs; however, the amounts of damages have not yet been determined by the Court. The Complaint was originally against the Company and certain officers and institutional lenders. The Plaintiffs are former franchisees of the Company’s traditional location venue. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants fraudulently induced them to purchase franchises for traditional locations through misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding the franchises. In addition to the above claims, one group of franchisee-Plaintiffs in the same case had asserted a separate claim under the Indiana Franchise Act on which the Court’s Order denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment as the Court determined that there is a genuine issue of material fact but did not render any opinion on the merits of the claim. The Company denies any liability on the Indiana Franchise Act claim and will continue to vigorously defend against this claim. The Company filed counterclaims for damages for breach of contract against all of the Plaintiffs in the approximate amount of $3.6 million plus attorneys’ fees, interest and other cost of collection, or a total of over $5 million. On September 21, 2011, the Company filed motions for partial summary judgment as to liability against the Plaintiffs on the Company’s counterclaims. As a result, the Company was granted partial summary judgment as to liability against the Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants on the Company’s counterclaims against the Plaintiffs. In this partial summary judgment, the Court determined that the Plaintiffs were liable to the Company for direct damages and consequential damages, including future royalties, for breach of their franchise agreements. In addition, the Court determined that, as a matter of law, Noble Roman’s was entitled to recover attorneys’ fees associated with obtaining preliminary injunctions, fees resulting from the prosecution of Noble Roman’s counterclaims and fees for defending against fraud claims against the Company and certain of its officers. The amount of the award is to be determined at trial. The Company requested the Court to order mandatory mediation as to the Indiana Franchise Act claim and the Company’s counterclaim for damages. The Court has agreed to grant the request but, as of yet, has not specified a date.

Pending Litigation

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

The Company is a Defendant in a lawsuit styled Kari Heyser, Fred Eric Heyser and Meck Enterprises, LLC, et al v. Noble Roman’s, Inc. et al, filed in Superior Court in Hamilton County, Indiana in June 2008 (Cause No. 29D01 0806 PL 739). The Court issued an Order dated December 23, 2010 granting summary judgment in favor of the Company against all of the Plaintiffs. As a result, the Plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud against the Company and certain of its officers were determined to be without merit. Plaintiffs filed numerous motions and an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals, in an attempt to reverse the December 23, 2010 summary judgment. All of the motions failed and the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ last attempt to vacate the summary judgment award was their attempt to vacate the Order on the grounds of misconduct of third parties. On December 1, 2011, the Judge denied their motion and specifically found “that there was absolutely no evidence of misconduct” and the Court admonished Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel for making such unfounded allegations. The fraud charges against the Company and certain of its officers are dismissed entirely and Plaintiffs have no appeal rights remaining. The Company then filed a motion for sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorney for the frivolous filings. On February 28, 2012, the Court granted the Company’s request for sanctions and ordered the Plaintiffs and their attorney to pay the Company $8,326 by April 23, 2012. Plaintiffs and their attorney have asked the Court to reconsider the grant of sanctions and requested a hearing. The Judge has set a hearing for May 23, 2012. The Company obtained summary judgment on its counterclaims against the Plaintiffs; however, the amounts of damages have not yet been determined by the Court.

The Complaint was originally against the Company and certain officers and institutional lenders. The Plaintiffs are former franchisees of the Company’s traditional location venue. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants fraudulently induced them to purchase franchises for traditional locations through misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding the franchises. In addition to the above claims, one group of franchisee-Plaintiffs in the same case had asserted a separate claim under the Indiana Franchise Act on which the Court’s Order denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment as the Court determined that there is a genuine issue of material fact but did not render any opinion on the merits of the claim. The Company denies any liability on the Indiana Franchise Act claim and will continue to vigorously defend against this claim.

The Company filed counterclaims for damages for breach of contract against all of the Plaintiffs in the approximate amount of $3.6 million plus attorneys’ fees, interest and other cost of collection, or a total of over $5 million. On September 21, 2011, the Company filed motions for partial summary judgment as to liability against the Plaintiffs on the Company’s counterclaims. As a result, the Company was granted partial summary judgment as to liability against the Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants on the Company’s counterclaims against the Plaintiffs. In this partial summary judgment, the Court determined that the Plaintiffs were liable to the Company for direct damages and consequential damages, including future royalties, for breach of their franchise agreements. In addition, the Court determined that, as a matter of law, Noble Roman’s was entitled to recover attorneys’ fees associated with obtaining preliminary injunctions, fees resulting from the prosecution of Noble Roman’s counterclaims and fees for defending against fraud claims against the Company and certain of its officers. The amount of the award is to be determined at trial. The Company requested the Court to order mandatory mediation as to the Indiana Franchise Act claim and the Company’s counterclaim for damages. The Court has agreed to grant the request but, as of yet, has not specified a date.