Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

From time to time, we are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business relating to matters including, but not limited to, disputes with franchisees, suppliers, employees and customers, as well as disputes over our intellectual property.

On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against Burger King Worldwide, Inc. (“BKW”) and Burger King Company, successor in interest, (“BKC”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Sandra Munster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. These complaints have been consolidated and allege that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees are required to sign. Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for himself or herself and other members of the class. On March 24, 2020, the Court granted BKC’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on April 20, 2020 the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint. On April 27, 2020, BKC filed a motion opposing the motion for leave to amend. The court denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend their complaint in August 2020 and the plaintiffs appealed this ruling. In August 2022, the federal appellate court reversed the lower court's decision to dismiss the case and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. While we currently believe these claims are without merit, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any.

On October 26, 2020, City of Warwick Municipal Employees Pension Fund, a purported stockholder of RBI, individually and putatively on behalf of all other stockholders similarly situated, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York naming RBI and certain of our officers, directors and shareholders as defendants alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with certain offerings of securities by an affiliate in August and September 2019. The complaint alleges that the shelf registration statement used in connection with such offering contained certain false and/or misleading statements or omissions. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, pre-judgement and post-judgement interest, costs and expenses. On December 18, 2020 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on February 16, 2021 RBI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motion on April 19, 2021 and RBI filed a reply in May 2021. The motion to dismiss was heard in April 2022 and the motion to dismiss was denied in May 2022. On June 6, 2022, we filed an answer to the complaint and on July 8, 2022, we filed an appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss. On November 10, 2022, the appellate division reversed the trial court and ordered that the complaint be dismissed. Plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, which RBI opposed, and on March 21, 2023, the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. As that decision is now final in the New York courts, we do not anticipate any further proceedings in this matter.