Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Oct. 01, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Purchase commitments — Jack in the Box and Del Taco have long-term food and beverage supply agreements with certain major vendors, which provide food and fountain drink products and marketing support funding to the Company and its franchisees. These agreements require minimum purchases 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 1, 2023, total food and beverage purchase requirements under these agreements is estimated to be approximately $131.9 million over the next five 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 $16.3 million over the next five years.

Legal matters — The Company assesses 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 1, 2023, the Company had accruals of $40.9 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. The Company regularly reviews contingencies to determine the adequacy of the accruals and related disclosures. The ultimate amount of loss may differ from these estimates. 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. 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. As of October 1, 2023, the Company has accrued the verdict amount above, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgement interest and an estimated fee award, for an additional $8.3 million. These amounts are included within “Accrued liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet as of October 1, 2023. The Company will continue to accrue for post-judgment interest until the matter is resolved.

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. On August 8, 2023, the court issued its final approval of the settlement and on August 9, 2023 final judgement was entered. The Company made its first payment of half of the settlement amount on August 28, 2023. Payment of the second half is due on November 27, 2023. As of October 1, 2023, the Company has accrued the remaining settlement amount of $25.5 million, which included within “Accrued liabilities” on its consolidated balance sheet.

J&D Restaurant Group — On April 17, 2019, the trustee for a bankrupt former franchisee filed a complaint generally alleging the Company wrongfully terminated the franchise agreements and unreasonably denied two perspective purchasers the former franchisee presented. The parties participated in a mediation in April 2021, and again in December 2022, but the matter did not settle. Trial commenced on January 9, 2023. On February 8, 2023, the jury returned a verdict finding the Company had not breached any contracts in terminating the franchise agreements or denying the proposed buyers. However, while the jury also found the Company had not violated the California Unfair Practices Act, it found for the plaintiff on the claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and awarded $8.0 million in damages. On May 9, 2023, the court granted the Company’s post-trial motion, overturning the jury verdict and ordering the plaintiff take nothing on its claims. As a result, the Company reversed the prior $8.0 million accrual, and as of October 1, 2023, the Company has no amounts accrued for this case on its consolidated balance sheet. The Plaintiff has appealed the trial court’s post-trial rulings.

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 1, 2023, the maximum potential liability of future undiscounted payments under these leases is approximately $21.7 million. The lease terms extend for a maximum of approximately 14 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.