XML 34 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jul. 06, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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 July 6, 2025, the Company had accruals of $18.8 million for all of its legal matters in aggregate, presented within “Accrued liabilities” on our condensed 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 both parties have filed appeals of the verdict. As of July 6, 2025, the Company has accrued the verdict amount above, as well as estimated prejudgment and post-judgment interest and fee award, for an additional $9.9 million. These amounts are included within “Accrued liabilities” on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of July 6, 2025. The Company will continue to accrue for post-judgment interest until the matter is resolved. 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 prospective 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. The trial commenced on January 9, 2023 and 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. The Plaintiff has appealed the trial court’s post-trial rulings. As part of the appeal, the parties participated in a mediation on March 18, 2025. The matter did not settle, and as of July 6, 2025, the Company has accrued an amount commensurate with attempts to resolve the claims on its condensed consolidated balance sheet. The parties are currently awaiting the appellate court’s ruling. 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 July 6, 2025, the maximum potential liability of future undiscounted payments under these leases is approximately $18.7 million. The lease terms extend for a maximum of approximately 13 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.

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://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration