11. Commitments and Contingencies

We currently lease all of our restaurant locations under operating leases, with remaining terms ranging from one year to 23 years, excluding unexercised renewal options. Our restaurant leases typically include land and building shells, require contingent rent above the minimum base rent payments based on a percentage of revenues ranging from 2.5% to 10%, have escalating minimum rent requirements over the term of the lease and require various expenses incidental to the use of the property. A majority of our leases provide for a reduced level of overall rent obligation should specified co-tenancy requirements not be satisfied. Most leases have renewal options. Many of our leases also provide early termination rights permitting us to terminate the lease prior to expiration in the event our revenues are below a stated level for a period of time, generally conditioned upon repayment of the unamortized allowances contributed by landlords to the build-out of the leased premises. We also lease automobiles and certain equipment under operating lease agreements. Rent expense is included in other operating costs and expenses in the consolidated statements of income.

As of January 1, 2019, the aggregate minimum annual lease payments under operating leases, including amounts characterized as deemed landlord financing payments, are as follows (in thousands):


2019	$	93,792
2020		91,808
2021		88,829
2022		86,925
2023		81,929
Thereafter		495,091
Total	$	938,374

Rent expense on all operating leases was as follows (in thousands):


	Fiscal Year
	2018		2017		2016
Straight-lined minimum base rent	$	83,999	$	83,387	$	80,276
Contingent rent		20,147		19,559		22,408
Common area maintenance and taxes		39,961		38,103		36,252
Total	$	144,107	$	141,049	$	138,936

We enter into various obligations for the purchase of goods and for the construction of restaurants. At January 1, 2019, these obligations approximated $154.1 million, $118.2 million of which is due in fiscal 2019.

Based on North Italia’s current performance, we are likely to acquire the remaining interest in the concept at the end of the third quarter of 2019 for an estimated $150 million. However, we could be obligated to do so if certain financial, legal and operational conditions are met and Fox Restaurant Concepts LLC (“FRC”) elects to exercise its put option prior to this date.

As of January 1, 2019, we were obligated to provide up to an additional $3 million in growth capital to Flower Child. We have the right to acquire the remaining interest in Flower Child in fiscal 2021. However, we could be obligated to do so if certain financial, legal and operational conditions are met and FRC elects to exercise its put option prior to this date.

As credit guarantees to insurers, we have $20.7 million in standby letters of credit related to our self-insurance liabilities. All standby letters of credit are renewable annually.

We retain the financial responsibility for a significant portion of our risks and associated liabilities with respect to workers’ compensation, general liability, staff member health benefits, employment practices and other insurable risks. The accrued liabilities associated with these programs are based on our estimate of the ultimate costs to settle known claims, as well as claims incurred but not yet reported to us (“IBNR”) as of the balance sheet date. Our estimated liabilities are based on information provided by our insurance brokers and insurers, combined with our judgment regarding a number of assumptions and factors, including the frequency and severity of claims, claims development history, case jurisdiction, applicable legislation and our claims settlement practices. At January 1, 2019, the total accrued liability for our self-insured plans was $72.2 million.

On November 26, 2014, a former hourly restaurant employee filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims (Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No 37-2014-00040278). The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under California Private Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA") in addition to other monetary payments. By stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014-00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court. On March 2, 2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially transferred and assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the Orange County Superior Court. On June 27, 2016, we gave notice to the court that Case Nos. CIV1504091 and BC603620 described below may be related. On February 13, 2018, the parties reached a settlement in Case No. 30-2015-00775529. On October 5, 2018, the judge signed the order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Based upon the current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount.

On May 21, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging similar claims to Case No. 30-2015-00775529 (Silva v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No. BC706365). On July 5, 2018, we notified the court that Case No. BC706365 and Case No. 30-2015-00775529 may be related. The plaintiff in Case No. BC70365 seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments. We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments.

On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former hourly restaurant employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the State of New York’s minimum wage and overtime provisions (Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No. 2:15-CV-03117). On September 8, 2015, we filed a response to the complaint, requesting the court to compel arbitration against opt-in plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements. On July 21, 2016, the court issued an order confirming the agreement of the parties to dismiss all class claims with prejudice and to allow the case to proceed as a collective action covering a limited number of our restaurants in the State of New York. On February 21, 2018, the parties reached a tentative settlement subject to documentation and court approval. Based upon the current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount.

On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging that the Company improperly classified its managerial employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate wage statements, in addition to other claims. The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. BC603620). On March 23, 2016, the parties issued their joint status conference statement at which time we gave notice to the court that Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and CIV1504091 may be related. On April 29, 2016, we filed a response to the complaint. We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments.

On July 12, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company violated California's unfair business practices statute by improperly calculating suggested gratuity amounts on split payment transactions (Goldman v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. BC668334). On December 1, 2017, we filed a demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff filed his opposition on December 26, 2017. On March 27, 2018, the Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to six of the seven causes of action in the complaint. On January 25, 2019, the parties reached a tentative settlement for an immaterial amount covering all claims.

On June 22, 2018,the Internal Revenue Service issued a Notice of Deficiency in which they disallowed $8.0 million of our §199 Domestic Production Activities Deduction for tax years 2010, 2011 and 2012. On September 11, 2018 we petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. The tax court has assigned docket number 18150-18 to our case. We intend to vigorously defend our position in litigation and based on our analysis of the law, regulations and relevant facts, we have not reserved for any potential future payments.

On February 3, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, by failing to properly censor consumer credit or debit card information (Muransky v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM). On February 21, 2017 and February 28, 2017, two additional lawsuits were filed in California and New York, respectively, alleging similar claims to Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM (Tibbits v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 ( E.D.N.Y.); Zhang v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No 8:17-cv-00357 (C.D. Cal.)). We filed a motion to transfer and dismiss Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM on March 24, 2017 and similarly filed a motion to transfer and dismiss Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 on April 7, 2017. On October 16, 2017, the Florida court granted our motion to transfer Case No. 0:17-cv-60229JEM to California to be consolidated with Case No. 8:17-cv-00357. The plaintiff in Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 agreed to transfer its case to California and such matter was subsequently consolidated with Case No 8:17-cv-00357. On May 25, 2018, the parties reached a tentative settlement which covers the three consolidated cases. The final settlement agreement is subject to documentation and court approval and will be covered by our insurance provider.

On February 3, 2017, five present and former hourly restaurant employees filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to permit required meal and rest breaks, and failing to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims (Abdelaziz v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No 37-2016-00039775-CU-OE-CTL). On February 22, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging similar claims to Case No. 37-2016-00039775-CU-OE-CTL (Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No. 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL). The San Diego County Superior Court consolidated Case Nos. 37-2016-00039775-CU-OR-CTL and 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL. The lawsuits seek unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments. On July 24, 2018, the parties reached a tentative settlement which covers the consolidated cases. On October 5, 2018, the court signed an order approving the settlement agreement. We have reserved an immaterial amount.

On June 1, 2018, a former hourly restaurant employee filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company violated minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code (Orellana v. Grand Lux Cafe, LLC, et al; Case No. 18-cv-02739). The plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiff and other purported class members. On August 31, 2018, the court signed an order staying Case No. 18-cv-02739 in favor of individual arbitration of plaintiff's claims. We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments.

On June 7, 2018, the California Department of Industrial Relations issued a $4.2 million wage citation jointly against the Company and its vendor that provides janitorial services to eight of our Southern California restaurants, alleging that the janitorial vendor or its subcontractor failed to comply with various provisions of the California Labor Code (Wage Citation Case No. 35-CM-188798-16). The wage citation seeks to recover penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the employees that worked for this vendor or its subcontractor. On June 28, 2018, we filed an appeal of the wage citation. We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments.

Within the ordinary course of our business, we are subject to private lawsuits, government audits, administrative proceedings and other claims. These matters typically involve claims from customers, staff members and others related to operational and employment issues common to the foodservice industry. A number of these claims may exist at any given time, and some of the claims may be pled as class actions. From time to time, we are also involved in lawsuits with respect to infringements of, or challenges to, our registered trademarks and other intellectual property, both domestically and abroad. We could be affected by adverse publicity and litigation costs resulting from such allegations, regardless of whether they are valid or whether we are legally determined to be liable.

At this time, we believe that the amount of reasonably possible losses resulting from final disposition of any pending lawsuits, audits, proceedings and claims will not have a material adverse effect individually or in the aggregate on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity. It is possible, however, that our future results of operations for a particular quarter or fiscal year could be impacted by changes in circumstances relating to lawsuits, audits, proceedings or claims. Legal costs related to such claims are expensed as incurred.

We have employment agreements with certain of our executive officers that provide for payments to those officers in the event of an actual or constructive termination of their employment, including in the event of a termination without cause, an acquirer failure to assume or continue equity awards following a change in control of the Company or, otherwise, in the event of death or disability as defined in those agreements. Aggregate payments totaling approximately $1.8 million, excluding accrued potential bonuses of $1.8 million, which are subject to approval by the Compensation Committee, would have been required by those agreements had all such officers terminated their employment for reasons requiring such payments as of January 1, 2019. In addition, the employment agreement with our Chief Executive Officer specifies an annual founder’s retirement benefit of $650,000 for ten years, commencing six months after termination of his full-time employment.