Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 24, 2012
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 2065. As of March 24, 2012, the potential amount of undiscounted payments we could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessees was approximately $650 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at our pre-tax cost of debt at March 24, 2012 was approximately $575 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 March 24, 2012 was not material. Franchise Loan Pool and Equipment Guarantees We have agreed to provide financial support, if required, to a variable interest 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 March 24, 2012. 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 $62 million at March 24, 2012 with an additional $18 million available for lending at March 24, 2012. We have determined that we are not required to consolidate this entity as we share the power to direct this entity's lending activity with other parties. In addition to the guarantee program described above, YUM has provided guarantees of $21 million on behalf of franchisees for several financing programs related to specific initiatives. The total loans outstanding under these financing programs were approximately $40 million at March 24, 2012. 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 self-insure the risks of loss up to defined maximum per occurrence retentions on a line-by-line basis. The Company then purchases insurance coverage, up to a certain limit, for losses that exceed the self-insurance per occurrence 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 March 24, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had liabilities recorded for self-insured property and casualty losses of $143 million and $140 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 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 and Market Training Managers (MTMs) 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 plaintiffs' class certification motion with respect to the unpaid overtime claims of RGMs and MTMs 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 testimony began on February 14, 2012. 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 timely 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 the vacation and final pay claims 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 vacation and final pay claims. The plaintiffs have not moved for class certification on the remaining claims in the consolidated complaint. 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. After the denial of class certification in the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend her lawsuit, which plaintiff filed and served on January 4, 2012. Taco Bell filed its responsive pleading on February 8, 2012, and plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 15, 2012. 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. On January 14, 2011, the District Court stayed the entire action pending a decision from the California Supreme Court. In light of the California Supreme Court's decision in April 2012, the court has scheduled a status conference for May 21, 2012. 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. 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 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. On October 19, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the certified class to include a damages class. Briefing on Taco Bell's motion to decertify and plaintiffs' motion to amend the class is complete. No hearing has been scheduled by the court. 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 alleged 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 Fair Labor Standards Act (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 sixteen 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 to which Pizza Hut filed its opposition on October 5, 2011. A decision on plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification is expected during 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 worked 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 worked 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. On September 16, 2011, 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 opposed the motion. The court heard the motion on January 10, 2012, granted conditional certification and ordered the notice of the opt-in class be sent to the putative class members. The notice was sent to class members on February 24, 2012. After further discovery, Taco Bell plans to seek decertification of the class. 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 2065. As of March 24, 2012, the potential amount of undiscounted payments we could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessees was approximately $650 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at our pre-tax cost of debt at March 24, 2012 was approximately $575 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 March 24, 2012 was not material.

Franchise Loan Pool and Equipment Guarantees

We have agreed to provide financial support, if required, to a variable interest 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 March 24, 2012. 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 $62 million at March 24, 2012 with an additional $18 million available for lending at March 24, 2012. We have determined that we are not required to consolidate this entity as we share the power to direct this entity's lending activity with other parties.

In addition to the guarantee program described above, YUM has provided guarantees of $21 million on behalf of franchisees for several financing programs related to specific initiatives. The total loans outstanding under these financing programs were approximately $40 million at March 24, 2012.

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 self-insure the risks of loss up to defined maximum per occurrence retentions on a line-by-line basis. The Company then purchases insurance coverage, up to a certain limit, for losses that exceed the self-insurance per occurrence 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 March 24, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had liabilities recorded for self-insured property and casualty losses of $143 million and $140 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 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 and Market Training Managers (MTMs) 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 plaintiffs' class certification motion with respect to the unpaid overtime claims of RGMs and MTMs 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 testimony began on February 14, 2012.

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 timely 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 the vacation and final pay claims 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 vacation and final pay claims. The plaintiffs have not moved for class certification on the remaining claims in the consolidated complaint.

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. After the denial of class certification in the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend her lawsuit, which plaintiff filed and served on January 4, 2012. Taco Bell filed its responsive pleading on February 8, 2012, and plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 15, 2012.

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. On January 14, 2011, the District Court stayed the entire action pending a decision from the California Supreme Court. In light of the California Supreme Court's decision in April 2012, the court has scheduled a status conference for May 21, 2012.

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. 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 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. On October 19, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the certified class to include a damages class. Briefing on Taco Bell's motion to decertify and plaintiffs' motion to amend the class is complete. No hearing has been scheduled by the court.

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 alleged 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 Fair Labor Standards Act (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 sixteen 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 to which Pizza Hut filed its opposition on October 5, 2011. A decision on plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification is expected during 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 worked 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 worked 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. On September 16, 2011, 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 opposed the motion. The court heard the motion on January 10, 2012, granted conditional certification and ordered the notice of the opt-in class be sent to the putative class members. The notice was sent to class members on February 24, 2012. After further discovery, Taco Bell plans to seek decertification of the class.

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.