Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 03, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies	Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies Lease Guarantees As a result of (a) assigning our interest in obligations under real estate leases as a condition to the refranchising of certain Company restaurants; (b) contributing certain Company restaurants to unconsolidated affiliates; and (c) guaranteeing certain other leases, we are frequently contingently liable on lease agreements. These leases have varying terms, the latest of which expires in 2026. As of September 3, 2011, the potential amount of undiscounted payments we could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessee was approximately $525 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at our pre-tax cost of debt at September 3, 2011 was approximately $475 million. Our franchisees are the primary lessees under the vast majority of these leases. We generally have cross-default provisions with these franchisees that would put them in default of their franchise agreement in the event of non-payment under the lease. We believe these cross-default provisions significantly reduce the risk that we will be required to make payments under these leases. Accordingly, the liability recorded for our probable exposure under such leases at September 3, 2011 was not material. Franchise Loan Pool Guarantees We have agreed to provide financial support, if required, to an entity that operates a franchisee lending program used primarily to assist franchisees in the development of new restaurants in the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, in connection with the Company’s refranchising programs. As part of this agreement, we have provided a partial guarantee of approximately $14 million and two letters of credit totaling approximately $23 million in support of the franchisee loan program at September 3, 2011. One such letter of credit could be used if we fail to meet our obligations under our guarantee. The other letter of credit could be used, in certain circumstances, to fund our participation in the funding of the franchisee loan program. The total loans outstanding under the loan pool were $63 million with an additional $37 million available for lending at September 3, 2011. In addition to the guarantee program described above, YUM has provided guarantees of $20 million on behalf of franchisees for several financing programs related to specific initiatives. The total nominal loans outstanding under these financing programs were approximately $25 million at September 3, 2011. Insurance Programs We are self-insured for a substantial portion of our current and prior years’ loss exposures including workers’ compensation, employment practices liability, general liability, automobile liability, product liability and property losses (collectively, “property and casualty losses”). To mitigate the cost of our exposures for certain property and casualty losses, we make annual decisions to self-insure the risks of loss up to defined maximum per occurrence retentions on a line by line basis or to combine certain lines of coverage into one loss pool with a single self-insured aggregate retention. The Company then purchases insurance coverage, up to a certain limit, for losses that exceed the self-insurance per occurrence or aggregate retention. The insurers’ maximum aggregate loss limits are significantly above our actuarially determined probable losses; therefore, we believe the likelihood of losses exceeding the insurers’ maximum aggregate loss limits is remote. As of September 3, 2011 and December 25, 2010, we had liabilities recorded for self-insured property and casualty losses of $147 million and $150 million, respectively. In the U.S. and in certain other countries, we are also self-insured for healthcare claims and for long-term disability claims for eligible participating employees subject to certain deductibles and limitations. We have accounted for our retained liabilities for property and casualty losses, healthcare and long-term disability claims, including both reported and incurred but not reported claims, based on information provided by independent actuaries. Due to the inherent volatility of actuarially determined property and casualty loss estimates, it is reasonably possible that we could experience changes in estimated losses which could be material to our growth in quarterly and annual Net Income. We believe that we have recorded reserves for property and casualty losses at a level which has substantially mitigated the potential negative impact of adverse developments and/or volatility. Legal Proceedings We are subject to various claims and contingencies related to lawsuits, real estate, environmental and other matters arising in the normal course of business. We provide reserves for such claims and contingencies when payment is probable and reasonably estimable. On November 26, 2001, Kevin Johnson, a former Long John Silver's (“LJS”) restaurant manager, filed a collective action against LJS in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) on behalf of himself and allegedly similarly-situated LJS general and assistant restaurant managers. Johnson alleged that LJS violated the FLSA by perpetrating a policy and practice of seeking monetary restitution from LJS employees, including Restaurant General Managers (“RGMs”) and Assistant Restaurant General Managers (“ARGMs”), when monetary or property losses occurred due to knowing and willful violations of LJS policies that resulted in losses of company funds or property, and that LJS had thus improperly classified its RGMs and ARGMs as exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA. Johnson sought overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees for himself and his proposed class. LJS moved the Tennessee district court to compel arbitration of Johnson's suit. The district court granted LJS's motion on June 7, 2004, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed on July 5, 2005. On December 19, 2003, while the arbitrability of Johnson's claims was being litigated, former LJS managers Erin Cole and Nick Kaufman, represented by Johnson's counsel, initiated arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (the “Cole Arbitration”). The Cole Claimants sought a collective arbitration on behalf of the same putative class as alleged in the Johnson lawsuit and alleged the same underlying claims. On June 15, 2004, the arbitrator in the Cole Arbitration issued a Clause Construction Award, finding that LJS's Dispute Resolution Policy did not prohibit Claimants from proceeding on a collective or class basis. LJS moved unsuccessfully to vacate the Clause Construction Award in federal district court in South Carolina. On September 19, 2005, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award, finding, inter alia, that a class would be certified in the Cole Arbitration on an “opt-out” basis, rather than as an “opt-in” collective action as specified by the FLSA. On January 20, 2006, the district court denied LJS's motion to vacate the Class Determination Award and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on January 28, 2008. A petition for a writ of certiorari filed in the United States Supreme Court seeking a review of the Fourth Circuit's decision was denied on October 7, 2008. An arbitration hearing on liability with respect to the alleged restitution policy and practice for the period beginning in late 1998 through early 2002 concluded in June, 2010. On October 11, 2010, the arbitrator issued a partial interim award for the first phase of the three-phase arbitration finding that, for the period from late 1998 to early 2002, LJS had a policy and practice of making impermissible deductions from the salaries of its RGMs and ARGMs. On September 15, 2011, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth the terms upon which the parties have agreed to settle this matter. On October 5, 2011, the arbitrator granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for December 12, 2011. The anticipated costs associated with the settlement have been recorded and did not significantly impact our results of operations. On August 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. styled Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior Court. On August 7, 2006, another putative class action lawsuit styled Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Both lawsuits were filed by a Taco Bell RGM purporting to represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-owned restaurants in California since August 2002. The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime and meal period violations and seek unspecified amounts in damages and penalties. The cases were consolidated in San Diego County as of September 7, 2006. On January 29, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion with respect to the unpaid overtime claims of RGMs and Market Training Managers but denied class certification on the meal period claims. The court has ruled that this case will be tried to the bench rather than a jury. Trial is scheduled to begin on February 6, 2012. On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. The Supreme Court held that the class in that case was improperly certified. Based on this decision and subsequent similar decisions, Taco Bell will move to decertify the class. A hearing on Taco Bell's motion is scheduled for November 4, 2011. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. We have provided for a reasonable estimate of the cost of this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of those currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200. Plaintiffs also seek penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act and statutory “waiting time” penalties and allege violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees. On May 19, 2009 the court granted Taco Bell's motion to consolidate these matters, and the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 29, 2009, and on March 30, 2010 the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on December 30, 2010 and the class certification hearing took place in June 2011. Taco Bell also filed, at the invitation of the court, a motion to stay the proceedings until the California Supreme Court rules on two cases concerning meal and rest breaks. On August 22, 2011, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the meal and rest break claims. On September 26, 2011, the court issued its order denying the certification of the remaining claims. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior Court. The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges that Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon termination, and seeks restitution and late payment penalties on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees. This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case described above. Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the case to the same district court as the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case. The state court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the Rosales case on May 28, 2010, and the matter remains stayed in Orange County Superior Court. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. On October 2, 2009, a putative class action, styled Domonique Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California state court on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging various California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal break violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations and waiting time penalties. Plaintiff is a former non-managerial KFC restaurant employee. KFC filed an answer on October 28, 2009, in which it denied plaintiff's claims and allegations. KFC removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on October 29, 2009. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on May 20, 2010 and KFC filed a brief in opposition. On October 22, 2010, the District Court granted Plaintiff's motion to certify a class on the meal and rest break claims, but denied the motion to certify a class regarding alleged off-the-clock work. On November 1, 2010, KFC filed a motion requesting a stay of the case pending a decision from the California Supreme Court regarding the applicable standard for employer provision of meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on November 19, 2010. On January 14, 2011, the District Court granted KFC's motion and stayed the entire action pending a decision from the California Supreme Court. No trial date has been set. KFC denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class. Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), and the California Disabled Persons Act (the “CDPA”). Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class. Plaintiffs contend that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class. On February 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class includes claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages. On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. On August 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to dining room seating. In addition, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard to queue lines. On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiff to file a definitive list of remaining issues and to select one restaurant to be the subject of a trial. The exemplar trial for that restaurant began on June 6, 2011. The trial was bifurcated and the first stage addressed whether violations existed at the restaurant. Twelve alleged violations of the ADA and state law were tried. The trial ended on June 16, 2011. On October 5, 2011, the court issued its trial decision. The court found liability for the twelve items, finding that they were once out of compliance with applicable state and/or federal accessibility standards. The court also found that classwide injunctive relief is warranted. The court declined to order injunctive relief at this time, however, citing the pendency of Taco Bell's motions to decertify both the injunctive and damages class. In a separate order, the court vacated the December 12, 2011 date previously set for an exemplar trial for damages on the single restaurant. On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. The Supreme Court held that the class in that case was improperly certified. The same legal theory was used to certify the class in the Moeller case, and Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class on August 3, 2011. During the exemplar trial, the court observed that the restaurant had been in full compliance with all laws since March, 2010, and Taco Bell argues in its decertification motion that, in light of the decision in the Dukes case, no damages class can be certified and that injunctive relief is not appropriate, regardless of class status. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. Taco Bell has taken steps to address potential architectural and structural compliance issues at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal disability access laws. The costs associated with addressing these issues have not significantly impacted our results of operations. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the probability or amount of liability for monetary damages on a class wide basis to Taco Bell. On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that Pizza Hut did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the FLSA and Colorado state law. On January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery drivers. However, on March 11, 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserts state-law class action claims under the laws of 16 different states. Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time. On August 9, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend. Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2011, the Court granted Pizza Hut's motion with respect to plaintiffs' state law claims, but allowed the FLSA claims to go forward. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification on August 31, 2011, which Pizza Hut will oppose. Pizza Hut does not expect a decision on that motion until 2012. Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive overtime pay after 40 hours in a week. The plaintiff also purports to represent a separate class of Colorado assistant managers under Colorado state law, which provides for daily overtime after 12 hours in a day. The Company has been dismissed from the case without prejudice. Taco Bell filed its answer on September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class discovery, which is currently on-going. Taco Bell moved to compel arbitration of certain employees in the Colorado class. The court denied the motion as premature because no class has yet been certified. On September 16, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification under the FLSA. The plaintiffs did not move for certification of a separate class of Colorado assistant managers under Colorado state law. Taco Bell's opposition is due October 28, 2011. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. We are engaged in various other legal proceedings and have certain unresolved claims pending, the ultimate liability for which, if any, cannot be determined at this time. However, based upon consultation with legal counsel, we are of the opinion that such proceedings and claims are not expected to have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Guarantees

As a result of (a) assigning our interest in obligations under real estate leases as a condition to the refranchising of certain Company restaurants; (b) contributing certain Company restaurants to unconsolidated affiliates; and (c) guaranteeing certain other leases, we are frequently contingently liable on lease agreements. These leases have varying terms, the latest of which expires in 2026. As of September 3, 2011, the potential amount of undiscounted payments we could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessee was approximately $525 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at our pre-tax cost of debt at September 3, 2011 was approximately $475 million. Our franchisees are the primary lessees under the vast majority of these leases. We generally have cross-default provisions with these franchisees that would put them in default of their franchise agreement in the event of non-payment under the lease. We believe these cross-default provisions significantly reduce the risk that we will be required to make payments under these leases. Accordingly, the liability recorded for our probable exposure under such leases at September 3, 2011 was not material.

Franchise Loan Pool Guarantees

We have agreed to provide financial support, if required, to an entity that operates a franchisee lending program used primarily to assist franchisees in the development of new restaurants in the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, in connection with the Company’s refranchising programs. As part of this agreement, we have provided a partial guarantee of approximately $14 million and two letters of credit totaling approximately $23 million in support of the franchisee loan program at September 3, 2011. One such letter of credit could be used if we fail to meet our obligations under our guarantee. The other letter of credit could be used, in certain circumstances, to fund our participation in the funding of the franchisee loan program. The total loans outstanding under the loan pool were $63 million with an additional $37 million available for lending at September 3, 2011.

In addition to the guarantee program described above, YUM has provided guarantees of $20 million on behalf of franchisees for several financing programs related to specific initiatives. The total nominal loans outstanding under these financing programs were approximately $25 million at September 3, 2011.

Insurance Programs

We are self-insured for a substantial portion of our current and prior years’ loss exposures including workers’ compensation, employment practices liability, general liability, automobile liability, product liability and property losses (collectively, “property and casualty losses”). To mitigate the cost of our exposures for certain property and casualty losses, we make annual decisions to self-insure the risks of loss up to defined maximum per occurrence retentions on a line by line basis or to combine certain lines of coverage into one loss pool with a single self-insured aggregate retention. The Company then purchases insurance coverage, up to a certain limit, for losses that exceed the self-insurance per occurrence or aggregate retention. The insurers’ maximum aggregate loss limits are significantly above our actuarially determined probable losses; therefore, we believe the likelihood of losses exceeding the insurers’ maximum aggregate loss limits is remote. As of September 3, 2011 and December 25, 2010, we had liabilities recorded for self-insured property and casualty losses of $147 million and $150 million, respectively.

In the U.S. and in certain other countries, we are also self-insured for healthcare claims and for long-term disability claims for eligible participating employees subject to certain deductibles and limitations. We have accounted for our retained liabilities for property and casualty losses, healthcare and long-term disability claims, including both reported and incurred but not reported claims, based on information provided by independent actuaries.

Due to the inherent volatility of actuarially determined property and casualty loss estimates, it is reasonably possible that we could experience changes in estimated losses which could be material to our growth in quarterly and annual Net Income. We believe that we have recorded reserves for property and casualty losses at a level which has substantially mitigated the potential negative impact of adverse developments and/or volatility.

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to various claims and contingencies related to lawsuits, real estate, environmental and other matters arising in the normal course of business. We provide reserves for such claims and contingencies when payment is probable and reasonably estimable.

On November 26, 2001, Kevin Johnson, a former Long John Silver's (“LJS”) restaurant manager, filed a collective action against LJS in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) on behalf of himself and allegedly similarly-situated LJS general and assistant restaurant managers. Johnson alleged that LJS violated the FLSA by perpetrating a policy and practice of seeking monetary restitution from LJS employees, including Restaurant General Managers (“RGMs”) and Assistant Restaurant General Managers (“ARGMs”), when monetary or property losses occurred due to knowing and willful violations of LJS policies that resulted in losses of company funds or property, and that LJS had thus improperly classified its RGMs and ARGMs as exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA. Johnson sought overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees for himself and his proposed class.

LJS moved the Tennessee district court to compel arbitration of Johnson's suit. The district court granted LJS's motion on June 7, 2004, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed on July 5, 2005.

On December 19, 2003, while the arbitrability of Johnson's claims was being litigated, former LJS managers Erin Cole and Nick Kaufman, represented by Johnson's counsel, initiated arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (the “Cole Arbitration”). The Cole Claimants sought a collective arbitration on behalf of the same putative class as alleged in the Johnson lawsuit and alleged the same underlying claims.

On June 15, 2004, the arbitrator in the Cole Arbitration issued a Clause Construction Award, finding that LJS's Dispute Resolution Policy did not prohibit Claimants from proceeding on a collective or class basis. LJS moved unsuccessfully to vacate the Clause Construction Award in federal district court in South Carolina. On September 19, 2005, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award, finding, inter alia, that a class would be certified in the Cole Arbitration on an “opt-out” basis, rather than as an “opt-in” collective action as specified by the FLSA.

On January 20, 2006, the district court denied LJS's motion to vacate the Class Determination Award and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on January 28, 2008. A petition for a writ of certiorari filed in the United States Supreme Court seeking a review of the Fourth Circuit's decision was denied on October 7, 2008.

An arbitration hearing on liability with respect to the alleged restitution policy and practice for the period beginning in late 1998 through early 2002 concluded in June, 2010. On October 11, 2010, the arbitrator issued a partial interim award for the first phase of the three-phase arbitration finding that, for the period from late 1998 to early 2002, LJS had a policy and practice of making impermissible deductions from the salaries of its RGMs and ARGMs.

On September 15, 2011, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth the terms upon which the parties have agreed to settle this matter. On October 5, 2011, the arbitrator granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for December 12, 2011. The anticipated costs associated with the settlement have been recorded and did not significantly impact our results of operations.

On August 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. styled Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior Court. On August 7, 2006, another putative class action lawsuit styled Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Both lawsuits were filed by a Taco Bell RGM purporting to represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-owned restaurants in California since August 2002. The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime and meal period violations and seek unspecified amounts in damages and penalties. The cases were consolidated in San Diego County as of September 7, 2006.

On January 29, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion with respect to the unpaid overtime claims of RGMs and Market Training Managers but denied class certification on the meal period claims. The court has ruled that this case will be tried to the bench rather than a jury. Trial is scheduled to begin on February 6, 2012. On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. The Supreme Court held that the class in that case was improperly certified. Based on this decision and subsequent similar decisions, Taco Bell will move to decertify the class. A hearing on Taco Bell's motion is scheduled for November 4, 2011.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. We have provided for a reasonable estimate of the cost of this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of those currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200. Plaintiffs also seek penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act and statutory “waiting time” penalties and allege violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees.

On May 19, 2009 the court granted Taco Bell's motion to consolidate these matters, and the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 29, 2009, and on March 30, 2010 the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on December 30, 2010 and the class certification hearing took place in June 2011. Taco Bell also filed, at the invitation of the court, a motion to stay the proceedings until the California Supreme Court rules on two cases concerning meal and rest breaks. On August 22, 2011, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the meal and rest break claims. On September 26, 2011, the court issued its order denying the certification of the remaining claims.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior Court. The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges that Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon termination, and seeks restitution and late payment penalties on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees. This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case described above. Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the case to the same district court as the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case. The state court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the Rosales case on May 28, 2010, and the matter remains stayed in Orange County Superior Court.

On October 2, 2009, a putative class action, styled Domonique Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California state court on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging various California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal break violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations and waiting time penalties. Plaintiff is a former non-managerial KFC restaurant employee. KFC filed an answer on October 28, 2009, in which it denied plaintiff's claims and allegations. KFC removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on October 29, 2009. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on May 20, 2010 and KFC filed a brief in opposition. On October 22, 2010, the District Court granted Plaintiff's motion to certify a class on the meal and rest break claims, but denied the motion to certify a class regarding alleged off-the-clock work. On November 1, 2010, KFC filed a motion requesting a stay of the case pending a decision from the California Supreme Court regarding the applicable standard for employer provision of meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on November 19, 2010. On January 14, 2011, the District Court granted KFC's motion and stayed the entire action pending a decision from the California Supreme Court. No trial date has been set.

KFC denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class. Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), and the California Disabled Persons Act (the “CDPA”). Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class. Plaintiffs contend that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class.

On February 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class includes claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. On August 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to dining room seating. In addition, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard to queue lines.

On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiff to file a definitive list of remaining issues and to select one restaurant to be the subject of a trial. The exemplar trial for that restaurant began on June 6, 2011. The trial was bifurcated and the first stage addressed whether violations existed at the restaurant. Twelve alleged violations of the ADA and state law were tried. The trial ended on June 16, 2011. On October 5, 2011, the court issued its trial decision. The court found liability for the twelve items, finding that they were once out of compliance with applicable state and/or federal accessibility standards. The court also found that classwide injunctive relief is warranted. The court declined to order injunctive relief at this time, however, citing the pendency of Taco Bell's motions to decertify both the injunctive and damages class. In a separate order, the court vacated the December 12, 2011 date previously set for an exemplar trial for damages on the single restaurant.

On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. The Supreme Court held that the class in that case was improperly certified. The same legal theory was used to certify the class in the Moeller case, and Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class on August 3, 2011. During the exemplar trial, the court observed that the restaurant had been in full compliance with all laws since March, 2010, and Taco Bell argues in its decertification motion that, in light of the decision in the Dukes case, no damages class can be certified and that injunctive relief is not appropriate, regardless of class status.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. Taco Bell has taken steps to address potential architectural and structural compliance issues at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal disability access laws. The costs associated with addressing these issues have not significantly impacted our results of operations. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the probability or amount of liability for monetary damages on a class wide basis to Taco Bell.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that Pizza Hut did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the FLSA and Colorado state law. On January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery drivers. However, on March 11, 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserts state-law class action claims under the laws of 16 different states. Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time. On August 9, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend. Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2011, the Court granted Pizza Hut's motion with respect to plaintiffs' state law claims, but allowed the FLSA claims to go forward. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification on August 31, 2011, which Pizza Hut will oppose. Pizza Hut does not expect a decision on that motion until 2012.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive overtime pay after 40 hours in a week. The plaintiff also purports to represent a separate class of Colorado assistant managers under Colorado state law, which provides for daily overtime after 12 hours in a day. The Company has been dismissed from the case without prejudice. Taco Bell filed its answer on September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class discovery, which is currently on-going. Taco Bell moved to compel arbitration of certain employees in the Colorado class. The court denied the motion as premature because no class has yet been certified. On September 16, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification under the FLSA. The plaintiffs did not move for certification of a separate class of Colorado assistant managers under Colorado state law. Taco Bell's opposition is due October 28, 2011.

We are engaged in various other legal proceedings and have certain unresolved claims pending, the ultimate liability for which, if any, cannot be determined at this time. However, based upon consultation with legal counsel, we are of the opinion that such proceedings and claims are not expected to have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.