XML 32 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.1

Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies | Contingencies 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 secondarily liable on lease agreements. These leases have varying terms, the latest of which expires in 2065. As of March 31, 2021, the potential amount of undiscounted payments we could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessee was approximately $425 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at our pre-tax cost of debt at March 31, 2021, was approximately $350 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, although such risk may not be reduced in the context of a bankruptcy or other similar restructuring of a large franchisee or group of franchisees. The liability recorded for our expected losses under such leases as of March 31, 2021, was not material. 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. Yum! Restaurants India Private Limited (“YRIPL”), a Yum subsidiary that operates KFC and Pizza Hut restaurants in India, is the subject of a regulatory enforcement action in India (the “Action”). The Action alleges, among other things, that KFC International Holdings, Inc. and Pizza Hut International failed to satisfy certain conditions imposed by the Secretariat for Industrial Approval in 1993 and 1994 when those companies were granted permission for foreign investment and operation in India. The conditions at issue include an alleged minimum investment commitment and store build requirements as well as limitations on the remittance of fees outside of India. The Action originated with a complaint and show cause notice filed in 2009 against YRIPL by the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Enforcement (“DOE”) of the Indian Ministry of Finance following an income tax audit for the years 2002 and 2003. The matter was argued at various hearings in 2015, but no order was issued. Following a change in the incumbent official holding the position of Special Director of DOE (the “Special Director”), the matter resumed in 2018 and several additional hearings were conducted. On January 29, 2020, the Special Director issued an order imposing a penalty on YRIPL and certain former directors of approximately Indian Rupee 11 billion, or approximately $150 million. Of this amount, $145 million relates to the alleged failure to invest a total of $80 million in India within an initial seven-year period. We have been advised by external counsel that the order is flawed and have filed a writ petition with the Delhi High Court, which granted an interim stay of the penalty order on March 5, 2020. The stay order remains in effect and the next hearing is scheduled for August 9, 2021. We deny liability and intend to continue vigorously defending this matter. We do not consider the risk of any significant loss arising from this order to be probable. We are currently 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 Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration