Commitments And Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Oct. 02, 2011

Commitments And Contingencies

Commitments And Contingencies

Note 15:    Commitments and Contingencies

Guarantees

We have unconditionally guaranteed the repayment of certain Japanese yen-denominated bank loans and related interest and fees of an unconsolidated equity investee, Starbucks Japan. The guarantees continue until the loans, including accrued interest and fees, have been paid in full. These guarantees expire in 2014. Our maximum exposure under this commitment as of October 2, 2011 was $1.0 million and is limited to the sum of unpaid principal and interest, as well as other related expenses. Since there has been no modification of these loan guarantees subsequent to the adoption of accounting requirements for guarantees, we have applied the disclosure provisions only and have not recorded the guarantees on our consolidated balance sheets.

Legal Proceedings

In the first quarter of fiscal 2011, Starbucks notified Kraft Foods Global, Inc. ("Kraft") that we were discontinuing our distribution arrangement with Kraft on March 1, 2011 due to material breaches by Kraft of its obligations under the Supply and License Agreement between the Company and Kraft, dated March 29, 2004 (the "Agreement"), which defined the main distribution arrangement between the parties. Through our arrangement with Kraft, Starbucks sold a selection of Starbucks and Seattle's Best Coffee branded packaged coffees in grocery and warehouse club stores throughout the US, and to grocery stores in Canada, the UK and other European countries. Kraft managed the distribution, marketing, advertising and promotion of these products.

Kraft denies it has materially breached the Agreement. On November 29, 2010, Starbucks received a notice of arbitration from Kraft putting the commercial dispute between the parties into binding arbitration pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. In addition to denying it materially breached the Agreement, Kraft further alleges that if Starbucks wished to terminate the Agreement it must compensate Kraft as provided in the Agreement in an amount equal to the fair value of the Agreement, with an additional premium of up to 35% under certain circumstances. The parties are now engaged in extensive discovery with an arbitration trial expected in mid- 2012.

On December 6, 2010, Kraft commenced a federal court action against Starbucks, entitled Kraft Foods Global, Inc. v. Starbucks Corporation, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") seeking injunctive relief to prevent Starbucks from terminating the distribution arrangement until the parties' dispute is resolved through the arbitration proceeding. On January 28, 2011, the District Court denied Kraft's request for injunctive relief. Kraft appealed the District Court's decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 25, 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision. As a result, Starbucks is in full control of our packaged coffee business as of March 1, 2011.

While Starbucks believes we have valid claims of material breach by Kraft under the Agreement that allowed us to terminate the Agreement and certain other relationships with Kraft without compensation to Kraft, there exists the possibility of material adverse outcomes to Starbucks in the arbitration or to resolve the matter. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the range of possible outcomes with respect to the arbitration as we have not received any statement or articulation of damages from Kraft nor have we estimated the damages to Starbucks caused by Kraft's breaches. Information in this regard will be provided during the discovery process and is currently expected to be available in late March or early April 2012. And, although Kraft disclosed to the press and in federal court filings a $750 million offer Starbucks made to Kraft in August 2010 to avoid litigation and ensure a smooth transition of the business, the figure is not a proper basis upon which to estimate a possible outcome of the arbitration but was based upon facts and circumstances at the time. Kraft rejected the offer immediately and did not provide a counter-offer, effectively ending the discussions between the parties with regard to any payment. Moreover, the offer was made prior to our investigation of Kraft's breaches and without consideration of Kraft's continuing failure to comply with material terms of the agreements.

Starbucks is party to various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including certain employment litigation cases that have been certified as class or collective actions, but, except as noted above, is not currently a party to any legal proceeding that management believes could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.