XML 40 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.2.2
Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Oct. 02, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Purchase commitments — Jack in the Box and Del Taco have long-term beverage supply agreements with certain major beverage vendors, which provide fountain products and marketing support funding to the Company and its franchisees. These agreements require minimum purchases of fountain beverage syrup by the Company and its franchisees at agreed upon prices until the total volume commitments have been reached. Based on current pricing and ratio of usage at company-operated to franchised restaurants as of October 2, 2022, total beverage purchase requirements under these agreements is estimated to be approximately $75.2 million over the next seven years.
We also have entered into various arrangements with vendors providing information technology services with no early termination fees. The Company’s unconditional purchase obligations on these contracts total approximately $6.7 million over the next four years.
Legal matters — We assess contingencies, including litigation contingencies, to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in our financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of October 2, 2022, the Company had accruals of $59.2 million for all of its legal matters in aggregate, presented within “Accrued liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. When evaluating litigation contingencies, we may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the availability of appellate remedies, insurance coverage related to the claim or claims in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matter. In addition, damage amounts claimed in litigation against us may be unsupported, exaggerated, or unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of our potential liability or financial exposure. We regularly review contingencies to determine the adequacy of the accruals and related disclosures. The ultimate amount of loss may differ from these estimates. As of October 2, 2022, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, in excess of amounts accrued for these matters as of such date, to be up to approximately $6.5 million, excluding interest and attorney fees. Any estimate is not an indication of expected loss, if any, or of the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure and the ultimate amount of loss may differ materially from these estimates in the near term.
Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc. — In August 2010, five former Jack in the Box employees instituted litigation in federal court in Oregon alleging claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Oregon wage and hour laws. The plaintiffs alleged that Jack in the Box failed to pay non-exempt employees for certain meal breaks and improperly made payroll deductions for shoe purchases and for workers’ compensation expenses, and later added additional claims relating to timing of final pay and related wage and hour claims involving employees of a franchisee. In 2016, the court dismissed the federal claims and those relating to franchise employees. In June 2017, the court granted class certification with respect to state law claims of improper deductions and late payment of final wages. The parties participated in a voluntary mediation on March 16, 2020, but the matter did not settle. On October 24, 2022, a jury awarded plaintiffs approximately $6.4 million in damages and penalties, in addition to interest and attorney fees to be determined by the court at a later date. The Company continues to dispute liability and the damage award and will defend against both through post-trial motions and all other available appellate remedies.
Torrez — In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported Private Attorneys General Act claim and class action alleging various causes of action under California’s labor, wage, and hour laws. The plaintiff generally alleges Del Taco did not appropriately provide meal and rest breaks and failed to pay wages and reimburse business expenses to its California non-exempt employees. On November 12, 2021, the court granted, in part, the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties participated in a voluntary mediation on May 24, 2022 and June 3, 2022. On June 4, 2022, we entered into a Settlement Memorandum of Understanding (the “Agreement”) which obligates the Company to pay a gross settlement amount of $50.0 million, for which in exchange we will be released from all claims by the parties. The Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing and is contingent upon various conditions, including, but not limited to, court approvals. There can be no assurance that the Agreement will be approved by the court nor upheld if challenged on appeal. As of October 2, 2022, the Company has accrued the settlement amount, included within “Accrued liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet.
J&D Restaurant Group — On April 17, 2019, the trustee for a bankrupt former franchisee filed a complaint seeking to recover assets in the form of actual and exemplary damages for the bankruptcy trust and generally alleging the Company wrongfully terminated the franchise agreements and unreasonably denied two perspective purchasers that the former franchisee presented. The parties participated in a mediation in April 2021, but the matter did not settle. Trial in this matter is currently set for January 2023, with the parties scheduled to participate in another court ordered mediation in December 2022.
Other legal matters — In addition to the matters described above, we are subject to normal and routine litigation brought by former or current employees, customers, franchisees, vendors, landlords, shareholders, or others. We intend to defend ourselves in any such matters. Some of these matters may be covered, at least in part, by insurance or other third-party indemnity obligation. We record receivables from third party insurers when recovery has been determined to be probable.
Lease guarantees — We remain contingently liable for certain leases relating to our former Qdoba business which we sold in fiscal 2018. Under the Qdoba Purchase Agreement, the buyer has indemnified the Company of all claims related to these guarantees. As of October 2, 2022, the maximum potential liability of future undiscounted payments under these leases is approximately $23.5 million. The lease terms extend for a maximum of approximately 15 more years and we would remain a guarantor of the leases in the event the leases are extended for any established renewal periods. In the event of default, we believe the exposure is limited due to contractual protections and recourse available in the lease agreements, as well as the Qdoba Purchase Agreement, including a requirement of the landlord to mitigate damages by re-letting the properties in default, and indemnity from the Buyer. The Company has not recorded a liability for these guarantees as we believe the likelihood of making any future payments is remote.