Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Lease Guarantees

As a result of having assigned our interest in obligations under real estate leases as a condition to the refranchising of certain Company-owned restaurants, and 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 December 31, 2016, the potential amount of undiscounted payments we could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessee was approximately $550 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at our pre-tax cost of debt at December 31, 2016 was approximately $465 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 December 31, 2016 and December 26, 2015 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 or the upgrade of existing restaurants and, to a lesser extent, in connection with the Company’s refranchising programs in the U.S. 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. We have provided guarantees of 20% of the outstanding loans of the franchisee loan program. As such, at December 31, 2016 our guarantee exposure under this program is approximately $4 million based on total loans outstanding of $21 million.

In addition to the guarantees described above, YUM has agreed to provide guarantees of up to approximately $110 million on behalf of franchisees for several financing programs related to specific initiatives, primarily equipment purchases. At December 31, 2016, our guarantee exposure under these financing programs is approximately $6 million based on total loans outstanding of $10 million.

Insurance Programs

We are self-insured for a substantial portion of our current and prior years’ coverage including 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.

The following table summarizes the 2016 and 2015 activity related to our net self-insured property and casualty reserves as of December 31, 2016.



	Beginning Balance		Expense	Payments		Ending Balance
2016 Activity	$	102	42	(46	)	$	98
2015 Activity	$	116	39	(53	)	$	102

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.

In the U.S. and in certain other countries, we are also self-insured for healthcare claims and long-term disability 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 reported and incurred but not reported claims, based on information provided by independent actuaries.

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.

The Company and Taco Bell were named as defendants 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 sought penalties for alleged violations of California’s Labor Code under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) as well as statutory “waiting time” penalties and alleged violations of California’s Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought 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, leaving Taco Bell as the sole defendant. 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 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 opt out forms were mailed on January 21, 2014.

Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. On that same date, the court granted Taco Bell’s motion to dismiss all but one of the PAGA claims. On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the operative complaint and a motion to amend the class certification order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both motions, rejecting plaintiffs’ proposed on-duty meal period class but certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class.

Beginning on February 22, 2016, the late meal period class claim, the limited rest break class claim, the underpaid meal premium class claim, and the associated statutory “waiting time” penalty claim was tried to a jury. On March 9, 2016, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Taco Bell on the late meal period claim, the limited rest break claim, and the statutory “waiting time” penalty claim. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.5 million. A bench trial was subsequently conducted with respect to the PAGA claims and plaintiffs’ Business & Professions Code §17200 claim. On April 8, 2016, the court returned a verdict in favor of Taco Bell on the PAGA claims and the §17200 claim. In a separate ruling issued the same day, the court also ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.3 million. Taco Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class claim and filed a post-trial motion to overturn the verdict. Plaintiffs’ also filed various post-trial motions. On July 15, 2016, the court denied Taco Bell’s motion to overturn the verdict. The court denied Plaintiffs’ motions: (1) for a new trial, (2) for judgment as a matter of law to overturn the verdicts in favor of Taco Bell, (3) challenging the jury instructions and special verdict forms, and (4) to overturn the court’s rejection of the §17200 claims for meal and rest break violations. The court also denied Plaintiffs’ motions for additional costs and for enhanced awards to two of the named Plaintiffs. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the §17200 claim regarding the underpaid meal premium claim, but rejected awarding any additional damages, finding that the jury verdict sufficiently compensated the class. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, but awarded only approximately $1.1 million of the $7.3 million requested. The court also granted Plaintiffs’ bill of costs, but only awarded approximately $0.1 million of Plaintiffs’ $0.2 million. Thereafter, both Plaintiffs and Taco Bell timely filed notices of appeal and the matter is now before the Ninth Circuit. 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 Consolidated Financial Statements.

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 Statements.