Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 29, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The parties reached a settlement in principle on January 24, 2019 of all claims brought on behalf of the 32,000+ putative class members in Olvera, as well as all claims for failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements brought in the class actions captioned Martha Perez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC624001), Maria Vega, et al. v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC649719), and Gonzalez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC712867). The settlement reached in principle in the Olvera, Perez, Vega, and Gonzalez actions resolves all potential claims from April 12, 2010 through April 1, 2019 that El Pollo Loco restaurant employees may have against El Pollo Loco for failure to pay for all compensation owed, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks and failure to provide itemized wage statements, among other wage and hour related claims. A $16.3 million accrual of an expected settlement amount related to this matter was recorded as of December 26, 2018, and the court formally approved the settlement on January 31, 2020. The settlement payment was made on February 28, 2020. Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are commonly filed against California employers. The Company fully expects to have to defend against similar lawsuits in the future. On or about November 5, 2015, a purported Holdings shareholder filed a derivative complaint on behalf of Holdings in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain Holdings officers, directors and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C., under the caption Armen Galustyan v. Sather, et al. (Case No. 11676-VCL). The derivative complaint alleges that these defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Holdings and were unjustly enriched when they sold shares of Holdings at artificially inflated prices due to alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding EPL’s comparable store sales in the second quarter of 2015. The Holdings shareholder’s requested remedies include an award of compensatory damages to Holdings, as well as a court order to improve corporate governance by putting forward for stockholder vote certain resolutions for amendments to Holdings’ Bylaws or Certificate of Incorporation. The Holdings shareholder voluntarily dismissed the action on October 7, 2020. A second purported Holdings shareholder filed a derivative complaint on or about September 23, 2016, under the caption Diep v. Sather, CA 12760-VCL in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Diep action is also purportedly brought on behalf of Holdings, names the same defendants and asserts substantially the same claims on substantially the same alleged facts as does Galustyan. Defendants moved to stay or dismiss the Diep action. On March 17, 2017, the Delaware court granted in part, and denied in part, the motion to stay the Diep action. The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On January 17, 2018, the court entered an order granting the parties’ stipulation staying all proceedings in the Diep action for five months or until the completion of an investigation of the allegations in the action by a special litigation committee of the Holdings board of directors (the “SLC”). On September 25, 2020, after concluding its investigation, the SLC filed a motion to dismiss the Diep action and filed its investigative report under seal as an exhibit to the motion to dismiss. On May 21, 2021, while the SLC’s motion to dismiss the Diep action was pending, the Company filed a notice of proposed partial settlement of the Diep action with respect to defendants Kay Bogeajis, Laurance Roberts, Stephen J. Sather, Edward J. Valle, Douglas K. Ammerman, and Samuel N. Borgese (collectively, the “Settling Defendants”). Defendant Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC (“Trimaran”) was not a party to the settlement. The court approved the settlement of $625,000, less Plaintiffs’ fees of $156,250, on September 10, 2021, and dismissed all claims brought, or that could have been brought, against Settling Defendants. In connection with this settlement, the Company received $469,000 in insurance proceeds, which was recorded within general and administrative expenses in the Company’s statement of income for the year ended December 29, 2021. On July 30, 2021, the court granted the SLC’s motion to dismiss with respect to the claims asserted against remaining defendant Trimaran. On October 4, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s granting of the motion to dismiss against defendant Trimaran. Plaintiff filed its opening brief on December 6, 2021. SLC filed its answering brief on December 20, 2021 and the public version of the brief was filed on January 7, 2022. Plaintiffs filed the reply brief on January 4, 2022. The hearing on the appeal is scheduled for March 30, 2022. Janice P. Handlers-Bryman and Michael D. Bryman v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. MC026045) (the “Lancaster Lawsuit”) was filed on February 9, 2016. Existing El Pollo Loco franchisees, Janice P. Handlers-Bryman and Michael D. Bryman, as individuals and in their capacities as trustees of the Handlers Bryman Trust (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed suit against us alleging, among other things, that we “imposed unreasonable time limitations” on their development of additional restaurant locations in Lancaster, California, and that we thereafter developed company-operated El Pollo Loco restaurants in the “market area” of Plaintiffs’ existing El Pollo Loco restaurant in Lancaster. During fiscal 2020, the Company reached an agreement with the Plaintiffs to resolve the lawsuit for a payment by the Company of $2.5 million, which was recorded within operating expenses in the Company’s statement of income for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2020. Additionally, during fiscal 2020, the matter was formally resolved. On September 2, 2020, the California Court of Appeals entered an order, following a motion for stipulated reversal of the trial court’s judgment jointly filed by the parties, reversing the trial court’s judgment in the case and instructing the trial court to dismiss the matter with prejudice. On September 10, 2020, the trial court entered an order reversing its judgment and dismissing the case with prejudice. The settlement payment of $2.5 million has been made in the third quarter of 2020. The Company is also involved in various other claims such as wage and hour and other legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. The outcomes of these actions are not predictable but the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, liquidity, or capital resources. A significant increase in the number of claims, or an increase in amounts owing under successful claims, could materially and adversely affect its business, consolidated financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. Purchase Commitments The Company has long-term beverage supply agreements with certain major beverage vendors. Pursuant to the terms of these arrangements, marketing rebates are provided to the Company and its franchisees from the beverage vendors based upon the dollar volume of purchases for system-wide restaurants which will vary according to their demand for beverage syrup and fluctuations in the market rates for beverage syrup. These contracts have terms extending through the end of 2024. At December 29, 2021, the Company’s total estimated commitment to purchase chicken was $38.7 million. Contingent Lease Obligations As a result of assigning the Company’s interest in obligations under real estate leases in connection with the sale of company-operated restaurants to some of the Company’s franchisees, the Company is contingently liable on four lease agreements. These leases have various terms, the latest of which expires in 2036. As of December 29, 2021, the potential amount of undiscounted payments the Company could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessee was $2.6 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at the Company’s estimated pre-tax cost of debt at December 29, 2021 was $2.4 million. The Company’s franchisees are primarily liable on the leases. The Company has cross-default provisions with these franchisees that would put them in default of their franchise agreements in the event of non-payment under the leases. The Company believes that these cross-default provisions reduce the risk that payments will be required to be made under these leases. During fiscal 2020, due to the current uncertainty related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact it has had on the ability of the Company’s franchisees to make their lease payments, the Company recorded a $0.1 million liability in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to these contingent liabilities. During fiscal 2021, the Company reversed the initially recorded liability of $0.1 million due to the Company’s franchisees continuing to make their lease payments without any delays. Employment Agreements As of December 29, 2021, the Company had employment agreements with three of the officers of the Company. These agreements provide for minimum salary levels, possible annual adjustments for cost-of-living changes, and incentive bonuses that are payable under certain business conditions. Indemnification Agreements The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with each of its current directors and officers. These agreements require the Company to indemnify these individuals to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law against liabilities that may arise by reason of their service to the Company and to advance expenses incurred as a result of any proceeding against them as to which they could be indemnified. The Company also intends to enter into indemnification agreements with future directors and officers.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 29, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The parties reached a settlement in principle on January 24, 2019 of all claims brought on behalf of the 32,000+ putative class members in Olvera, as well as all claims for failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements brought in the class actions captioned Martha Perez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC624001), Maria Vega, et al. v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC649719), and Gonzalez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC712867). The settlement reached in principle in the Olvera, Perez, Vega, and Gonzalez actions resolves all potential claims from April 12, 2010 through April 1, 2019 that El Pollo Loco restaurant employees may have against El Pollo Loco for failure to pay for all compensation owed, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks and failure to provide itemized wage statements, among other wage and hour related claims. A $16.3 million accrual of an expected settlement amount related to this matter was recorded as of December 26, 2018, and the court formally approved the settlement on January 31, 2020. The settlement payment was made on February 28, 2020. Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are commonly filed against California employers. The Company fully expects to have to defend against similar lawsuits in the future.

On or about November 5, 2015, a purported Holdings shareholder filed a derivative complaint on behalf of Holdings in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain Holdings officers, directors and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C., under the caption Armen Galustyan v. Sather, et al. (Case No. 11676-VCL). The derivative complaint alleges that these defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Holdings and were unjustly enriched when they sold shares of Holdings at artificially inflated prices due to alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding EPL’s comparable store sales in the second quarter of 2015. The Holdings shareholder’s requested remedies include an award of compensatory damages to Holdings, as well as a court order to improve corporate governance by putting forward for stockholder vote certain resolutions for amendments to Holdings’ Bylaws or Certificate of Incorporation. The Holdings shareholder voluntarily dismissed the action on October 7, 2020. A second purported Holdings shareholder filed a derivative

complaint on or about September 23, 2016, under the caption Diep v. Sather, CA 12760-VCL in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Diep action is also purportedly brought on behalf of Holdings, names the same defendants and asserts substantially the same claims on substantially the same alleged facts as does Galustyan. Defendants moved to stay or dismiss the Diep action.

On March 17, 2017, the Delaware court granted in part, and denied in part, the motion to stay the Diep action. The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On January 17, 2018, the court entered an order granting the parties’ stipulation staying all proceedings in the Diep action for five months or until the completion of an investigation of the allegations in the action by a special litigation committee of the Holdings board of directors (the “SLC”). On September 25, 2020, after concluding its investigation, the SLC filed a motion to dismiss the Diep action and filed its investigative report under seal as an exhibit to the motion to dismiss.

On May 21, 2021, while the SLC’s motion to dismiss the Diep action was pending, the Company filed a notice of proposed partial settlement of the Diep action with respect to defendants Kay Bogeajis, Laurance Roberts, Stephen J. Sather, Edward J. Valle, Douglas K. Ammerman, and Samuel N. Borgese (collectively, the “Settling Defendants”). Defendant Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC (“Trimaran”) was not a party to the settlement. The court approved the settlement of $625,000, less Plaintiffs’ fees of $156,250, on September 10, 2021, and dismissed all claims brought, or that could have been brought, against Settling Defendants. In connection with this settlement, the Company received $469,000 in insurance proceeds, which was recorded within general and administrative expenses in the Company’s statement of income for the year ended December 29, 2021.

On July 30, 2021, the court granted the SLC’s motion to dismiss with respect to the claims asserted against remaining defendant Trimaran. On October 4, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s granting of the motion to dismiss against defendant Trimaran. Plaintiff filed its opening brief on December 6, 2021. SLC filed its answering brief on December 20, 2021 and the public version of the brief was filed on January 7, 2022. Plaintiffs filed the reply brief on January 4, 2022. The hearing on the appeal is scheduled for March 30, 2022.

Janice P. Handlers-Bryman and Michael D. Bryman v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. MC026045) (the “Lancaster Lawsuit”) was filed on February 9, 2016. Existing El Pollo Loco franchisees, Janice P. Handlers-Bryman and Michael D. Bryman, as individuals and in their capacities as trustees of the Handlers Bryman Trust (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed suit against us alleging, among other things, that we “imposed unreasonable time limitations” on their development of additional restaurant locations in Lancaster, California, and that we thereafter developed company-operated El Pollo Loco restaurants in the “market area” of Plaintiffs’ existing El Pollo Loco restaurant in Lancaster.

During fiscal 2020, the Company reached an agreement with the Plaintiffs to resolve the lawsuit for a payment by the Company of $2.5 million, which was recorded within operating expenses in the Company’s statement of income for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2020. Additionally, during fiscal 2020, the matter was formally resolved. On September 2, 2020, the California Court of Appeals entered an order, following a motion for stipulated reversal of the trial court’s judgment jointly filed by the parties, reversing the trial court’s judgment in the case and instructing the trial court to dismiss the matter with prejudice. On September 10, 2020, the trial court entered an order reversing its judgment and dismissing the case with prejudice. The settlement payment of $2.5 million has been made in the third quarter of 2020.

The Company is also involved in various other claims such as wage and hour and other legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. The outcomes of these actions are not predictable but the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, liquidity, or capital resources. A significant increase in the number of claims, or an increase in amounts owing under successful claims, could materially and adversely affect its business, consolidated financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Purchase Commitments

The Company has long-term beverage supply agreements with certain major beverage vendors. Pursuant to the terms of these arrangements, marketing rebates are provided to the Company and its franchisees from the beverage vendors based upon the dollar volume of purchases for system-wide restaurants which will vary according to their demand for beverage

syrup and fluctuations in the market rates for beverage syrup. These contracts have terms extending through the end of 2024.

At December 29, 2021, the Company’s total estimated commitment to purchase chicken was $38.7 million.

Contingent Lease Obligations

As a result of assigning the Company’s interest in obligations under real estate leases in connection with the sale of company-operated restaurants to some of the Company’s franchisees, the Company is contingently liable on four lease agreements. These leases have various terms, the latest of which expires in 2036. As of December 29, 2021, the potential amount of undiscounted payments the Company could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessee was $2.6 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at the Company’s estimated pre-tax cost of debt at December 29, 2021 was $2.4 million. The Company’s franchisees are primarily liable on the leases. The Company has cross-default provisions with these franchisees that would put them in default of their franchise agreements in the event of non-payment under the leases. The Company believes that these cross-default provisions reduce the risk that payments will be required to be made under these leases. During fiscal 2020, due to the current uncertainty related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact it has had on the ability of the Company’s franchisees to make their lease payments, the Company recorded a $0.1 million liability in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to these contingent liabilities. During fiscal 2021, the Company reversed the initially recorded liability of $0.1 million due to the Company’s franchisees continuing to make their lease payments without any delays.

Employment Agreements

As of December 29, 2021, the Company had employment agreements with three of the officers of the Company. These agreements provide for minimum salary levels, possible annual adjustments for cost-of-living changes, and incentive bonuses that are payable under certain business conditions.

Indemnification Agreements

The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with each of its current directors and officers. These agreements require the Company to indemnify these individuals to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law against liabilities that may arise by reason of their service to the Company and to advance expenses incurred as a result of any proceeding against them as to which they could be indemnified. The Company also intends to enter into indemnification agreements with future directors and officers.