Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 22, 2014
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 2066. As of March 22, 2014, the potential amount of undiscounted payments we could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessees was approximately $700 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at our pre-tax cost of debt at March 22, 2014 was approximately $600 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 22, 2014 was not material. Other Franchise Guarantees We have agreed to provide guarantees of $44 million on behalf of franchisees for several financing programs related to specific initiatives. The total loans outstanding under these financing programs were approximately $75 million at March 22, 2014. 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. An accrual is recorded with respect to claims or contingencies for which a loss is determined to be probable and reasonably estimable. In early 2013, four putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain executive officers alleging claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s current and future business and financial condition. The four complaints were subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. On August 5, 2013, lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment GmbH, filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company’s stock between February 6, 2012 and February 4, 2013 (the “Class Period”). The Amended Complaint no longer includes allegations relating to misstatements regarding the Company’s business or financial condition and instead alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants purportedly omitted information about the Company’s supply chain in China, thereby inflating the prices at which the Company’s securities traded. On October 4, 2013, the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is now complete. The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in the Amended Complaint. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. On January 24, 2013, Bert Bauman, a purported shareholder of the Company, submitted a letter demanding that the Board of Directors initiate an investigation of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by directors, officers and employees of the Company. The breaches of fiduciary duties are alleged to have arisen primarily as a result of the failure to implement proper controls in connection with the Company’s purchases of poultry from suppliers to the Company’s China operations. Subsequently, similar demand letters by other purported shareholders were submitted. Those letters were referred to a special committee of the Board of Directors (the “Special Committee”) for consideration. The Special Committee, upon conclusion of an independent inquiry of the matters described in the letters, unanimously determined that it is not in the best interests of the Company to pursue the claims described in the letters and, accordingly, rejected each shareholder’s demand. On May 9, 2013, Mr. Bauman filed a putative derivative action in Jefferson Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company asserting breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with an alleged failure to implement proper controls in the Company’s purchases of poultry from suppliers to the Company’s China operations and with an alleged scheme to mislead investors about the Company’s growth prospects in China. By agreement of the parties, the matter is temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss the securities class action. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. On February 14, 2013, Jennifer Zona, another purported shareholder of the Company, submitted a demand letter similar to the demand letters described above. On May 21, 2013, Ms. Zona filed a putative derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against certain officers and directors of the Company asserting claims similar to those asserted by Mr. Bauman. The case was subsequently reassigned to the same judge that the securities class action is before. On October 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of the Special Committee’s findings. By agreement of the parties, the matter is temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss the securities class action. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. On May 17, 2013, Sandra Wollman, another purported shareholder of the Company, submitted a demand letter similar to the demand letters described above. On December 9, 2013, Ms. Wollman filed a putative derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company asserting claims similar to those asserted by Mr. Bauman and Ms. Zona. By agreement of the parties, the matter was consolidated with the Zona action and is temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss the securities class action. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. 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. Some plaintiffs also seek penalties for alleged violations of California’s Labor Code under California’s Private Attorneys General Act as well as 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. These matters were consolidated, 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 in June 2009, and in March 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 in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the District Court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members, and the class notice and opportunity to opt out of the litigation were mailed on January 21, 2014. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. We have provided for a reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to 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. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of that currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements cannot be made at this time. On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various violations of California labor laws including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200. This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case described above. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of California’s Labor Code under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the action in light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied on October 30, 2013. In April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of plaintiff’s legal theory as to her meal break claim before conducting full discovery. On April 23, 2014, the court approved the stipulation and set a hearing for cross-summary judgment motions on September 10, 2014. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. In December 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. In August 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging, 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 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. In February 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The class included claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages. In May 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. In August 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. In December 2009, the court denied Taco Bell’s motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiffs to select one restaurant to be the subject of a trial. Following the trial, the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in October 2011 ruling that plaintiffs established that classwide injunctive relief was warranted with regard to maintaining compliance as to corporate Taco Bell restaurants in California. The court declined to order injunctive relief at the time. The court also found that twelve specific items at the exemplar store were once out of compliance with applicable state and/or federal accessibility standards. Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class in August 2011, and in July 2012, the court granted Taco Bell’s motion to decertify the previously certified state law damages class but denied Taco Bell’s motion to decertify the ADA injunctive relief class. In September 2012, the court set a discovery and briefing schedule concerning the trials of the four individual plaintiffs’ state law damages claims, which the court stated will be tried before holding further proceedings regarding the possible issuance of an injunction. The court subsequently issued an order modifying its October 2011 Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law deleting the statement that an injunction was warranted. Plaintiffs appealed that order, and on June 24, 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff’s appeal. On January 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking issuance of a classwide injunction, and Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss both the individual and class ADA claims based on a lack of jurisdiction. On April 24, 2014, the parties agreed to settle this matter. The parties are in the process of submitting the settlement to the court for approval. If the settlement is approved by the court, the associated cash payments will not be material. In July 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. 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. In January 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery drivers. However, in March 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut’s pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted 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. In August 2010, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend. Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In July 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 in August 2011, and the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion in April 2012. The opt-in period closed on August 23, 2012, and 6,049 individuals opted in. On February 28, 2014, Pizza Hut filed a motion to decertify the collective action, along with a motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order from the Court that the FLSA does not require Pizza Hut to reimburse certain fixed costs that delivery drivers would have incurred regardless of their employment with Pizza Hut. Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. 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 current information and consultation with legal counsel, we expect that the final disposition of such proceedings and claims will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

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 2066. As of March 22, 2014, the potential amount of undiscounted payments we could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessees was approximately $700 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at our pre-tax cost of debt at March 22, 2014 was approximately $600 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 22, 2014 was not material.

Other Franchise Guarantees

We have agreed to provide guarantees of $44 million on behalf of franchisees for several financing programs related to specific initiatives. The total loans outstanding under these financing programs were approximately $75 million at March 22, 2014.

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. An accrual is recorded with respect to claims or contingencies for which a loss is determined to be probable and reasonably estimable.

In early 2013, four putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain executive officers alleging claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s current and future business and financial condition. The four complaints were subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. On August 5, 2013, lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment GmbH, filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company’s stock between February 6, 2012 and February 4, 2013 (the “Class Period”). The Amended Complaint no longer includes allegations relating to misstatements regarding the Company’s business or financial condition and instead alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants purportedly omitted information about the Company’s supply chain in China, thereby inflating the prices at which the Company’s securities traded. On October 4, 2013, the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is now complete. The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in the Amended Complaint. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

On January 24, 2013, Bert Bauman, a purported shareholder of the Company, submitted a letter demanding that the Board of Directors initiate an investigation of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by directors, officers and employees of the Company. The breaches of fiduciary duties are alleged to have arisen primarily as a result of the failure to implement proper controls in connection with the Company’s purchases of poultry from suppliers to the Company’s China operations. Subsequently, similar demand letters by other purported shareholders were submitted. Those letters were referred to a special committee of the Board of Directors (the “Special Committee”) for consideration. The Special Committee, upon conclusion of an independent inquiry of the matters described in the letters, unanimously determined that it is not in the best interests of the Company to pursue the claims described in the letters and, accordingly, rejected each shareholder’s demand.

On May 9, 2013, Mr. Bauman filed a putative derivative action in Jefferson Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company asserting breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with an alleged failure to implement proper controls in the Company’s purchases of poultry from suppliers to the Company’s China operations and with an alleged scheme to mislead investors about the Company’s growth prospects in China. By agreement of the parties, the matter is temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss the securities class action. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

On February 14, 2013, Jennifer Zona, another purported shareholder of the Company, submitted a demand letter similar to the demand letters described above. On May 21, 2013, Ms. Zona filed a putative derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against certain officers and directors of the Company asserting claims similar to those asserted by Mr. Bauman. The case was subsequently reassigned to the same judge that the securities class action is before. On October 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of the Special Committee’s findings. By agreement of the parties, the matter is temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss the securities class action. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

On May 17, 2013, Sandra Wollman, another purported shareholder of the Company, submitted a demand letter similar to the demand letters described above. On December 9, 2013, Ms. Wollman filed a putative derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company asserting claims similar to those asserted by Mr. Bauman and Ms. Zona. By agreement of the parties, the matter was consolidated with the Zona action and is temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss the securities class action. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

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. Some plaintiffs also seek penalties for alleged violations of California’s Labor Code under California’s Private Attorneys General Act as well as 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.

These matters were consolidated, 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 in June 2009, and in March 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 in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the District Court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members, and the class notice and opportunity to opt out of the litigation were mailed on January 21, 2014.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. We have provided for a reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to 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. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of that currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements cannot be made at this time.

On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various violations of California labor laws including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200. This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case described above. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of California’s Labor Code under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the action in light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied on October 30, 2013. In April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of plaintiff’s legal theory as to her meal break claim before conducting full discovery. On April 23, 2014, the court approved the stipulation and set a hearing for cross-summary judgment motions on September 10, 2014.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

In December 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. In August 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging, 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 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. In February 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The class included claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

In May 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. In August 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.

In December 2009, the court denied Taco Bell’s motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiffs to select one restaurant to be the subject of a trial. Following the trial, the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in October 2011 ruling that plaintiffs established that classwide injunctive relief was warranted with regard to maintaining compliance as to corporate Taco Bell restaurants in California. The court declined to order injunctive relief at the time. The court also found that twelve specific items at the exemplar store were once out of compliance with applicable state and/or federal accessibility standards.

Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class in August 2011, and in July 2012, the court granted Taco Bell’s motion to decertify the previously certified state law damages class but denied Taco Bell’s motion to decertify the ADA injunctive relief class. In September 2012, the court set a discovery and briefing schedule concerning the trials of the four individual plaintiffs’ state law damages claims, which the court stated will be tried before holding further proceedings regarding the possible issuance of an injunction. The court subsequently issued an order modifying its October 2011 Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law deleting the statement that an injunction was warranted. Plaintiffs appealed that order, and on June 24, 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff’s appeal. On January 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking issuance of a classwide injunction, and Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss both the individual and class ADA claims based on a lack of jurisdiction.

On April 24, 2014, the parties agreed to settle this matter. The parties are in the process of submitting the settlement to the court for approval. If the settlement is approved by the court, the associated cash payments will not be material.

In July 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. 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. In January 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery drivers. However, in March 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut’s pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted 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. In August 2010, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend. Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In July 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 in August 2011, and the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion in April 2012. The opt-in period closed on August 23, 2012, and 6,049 individuals opted in. On February 28, 2014, Pizza Hut filed a motion to decertify the collective action, along with a motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order from the Court that the FLSA does not require Pizza Hut to reimburse certain fixed costs that delivery drivers would have incurred regardless of their employment with Pizza Hut.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

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 current information and consultation with legal counsel, we expect that the final disposition of such proceedings and claims will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.