Commitments and Contingencies:

Leases

We lease certain stores under operating and capital leases that expire at various dates through 2035 with renewal options that expire at various dates through 2054. The leases generally require us to pay a minimum rent, property taxes, insurance, other maintenance costs and, in some instances, additional rent equal to the amount by which a percentage of the store’s revenues exceed certain thresholds as stipulated in the respective lease agreement. The leases generally have initial terms of 10 to 20 years with various renewal options.

The annual future lease commitments under capital lease obligations and non-cancelable operating leases, including reasonably assured option periods but excluding contingent rent, as of January 3, 2016, are as follows:



	Capital			Operating
Fiscal Years	(in thousands)
2016	$	2,169		$	89,594
2017	2,207			87,738
2018	2,278			85,520
2019	2,274			83,183
2020	2,305			81,899
Thereafter	20,719			588,424
Future minimum lease payments	31,952			1,016,358
Less amounts representing interest	(16,487		)
Present value of future minimum lease payments	15,465
Less current portion	(421		)
Capital lease obligations, net of current portion	$	15,044

Rent expense, including contingent rent based on a percentage of stores’ sales, when applicable, was comprised of the following:




	Successor				Predecessor
	Fiscal Year		For the 317 Day Period Ended		For the 47 Day Period Ended		Fiscal Year
	2015		December 28, 2014		February 14, 2014		2013
	(in thousands)
Minimum rentals	$	98,023	$	77,498	$	12,480	$	79,315
Contingent rentals	338		117		36		103
	$	98,361	$	77,615	$	12,516	$	79,418

Rent expense of $1.6 million in 2015, $0.9 million for the 317 day period ended December 28, 2014, $0.1 million for the 47 day period ended February 14, 2014, and $1.0 million in 2013 related to our corporate offices and warehouse facilities and was included in “General and administrative expenses” in our Consolidated Statements of Earnings.

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

Our unconditional purchase obligations consist of agreements to purchase goods or services that are enforceable and legally binding on us and that specify all significant terms, including (a) fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased; (b) fixed, minimum or variable price provisions; and (c) the approximate timing of the transaction. Our purchase obligations with terms in excess of one year totaled $5.0 million at January 3, 2016 and consisted of obligations associated with the modernization of various information technology platforms and information technology data security service agreements. These purchase obligations exclude agreements that can be canceled without significant penalty.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are involved in various inquiries, investigations, claims, lawsuits and other legal proceedings that are incidental to the conduct of our business. These matters typically involve claims from customers, employees or other third parties involved in operational issues common to the retail, restaurant and entertainment industries. Such matters typically represent actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, taxation, employment, employee benefits, personal injuries and other matters. A number of such claims may exist at any given time, and there are currently a number of claims and legal proceedings pending against us.

In the opinion of our management, after consultation with legal counsel, the amount of liability with respect to claims or proceedings currently pending against us is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Employment-Related Litigation: On January 27, 2014, former store employee Franchesca Ford filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San Francisco County Superior Court, California (the “Ford Litigation”). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the Company in California who were employed during the period January 27, 2010 to the present. She alleges violations of California state wage and hour laws governing vacation pay, meal and rest period pay, wages due upon termination, and waiting time penalties, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. In March 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, and subsequently defeated the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to California state court. On May 22, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the plaintiffs’ dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of complete releases, in exchange for the Company’s settlement payment. The settlement currently awaits the Court’s approval. The settlement of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

On March 24, 2014, Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, San Diego Division. The plaintiffs claim to represent other similarly-situated applicants who were subject to pre-employment background checks with the Company in California and across the United States from March 24, 2012 to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting and Investigative Reporting Agencies Act. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages. On September 23, 2014, the Company reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the plaintiffs’ dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of complete releases, in exchange for the Company’s settlement payment. On July 7, 2015, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On January 6, 2016, the Court signed the judgment approving the settlement. The Company expects this case to be closed during the second quarter of 2016. The settlement of this action did not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

On October 17, 2014, former store employee Wiley Wright filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, claiming to represent other similarly-situated salaried exempt current and former employees of the Company in the state of New York during the period October 17, 2008, as well as similarly-situated salaried exempt current and former employees throughout the remainder of the United States during the period October 17, 2011 to the present. The lawsuit alleges that current and former Assistant Managers and Senior Assistant Managers were unlawfully classified as exempt from overtime protections and worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On December 12, 2014, plaintiff moved for conditional certification of the putative class of employees; the Company filed its response to this motion on January 19, 2015. On July 16, 2015, the Court granted conditional certification of a collective group that included only the Assistant Managers and Senior Assistant Managers who worked in the four New York stores where plaintiff worked during his employment with the Company, while permitting plaintiff to obtain further discovery from the Company relating to his original motion. On November 18, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation. A draft of the proposed settlement agreement and the notice to class members are being finalized. The settlement would result in the plaintiffs’ dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of complete releases, in exchange for the Company’s settlement payment. Upon execution of the settlement agreement, the parties will submit the agreement to the Court for preliminary approval. The settlement of this action did not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

On October 10, 2014, former store General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the “Sinohui Litigation”), claiming to represent other similarly-situated current and former General Managers of the Company in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit alleges current and former California General Managers were unlawfully classified as exempt from overtime protections and worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest periods and paid meal periods, in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On December 5, 2014, the Company removed the Sinohui Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiff petitioned the court to remand the Sinohui Litigation to California state court. On January 9, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second, Third, Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action. The court has not ruled on this motion. On February 26, 2015, the Court overruled the plaintiff’s motion to remand. On October 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Class Certification. On January 8, 2016, the court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. We expect the court to rule on the motion by the end of the first quarter of 2016. We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action did not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

Litigation Related to the Merger: Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had entered into the Merger Agreement, four putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company against the Company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and Merger Sub, in connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. The first purported class action, styled Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al. (the “Coyne Action”), was filed on January 21, 2014. The second, styled John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the “Solak Action”), was filed on January 22, 2014. The third, styled Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the “Dixon Action”), was filed on January 24, 2014, and additionally names as defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and the AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The fourth, styled Louisiana Municipal Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Frank, et al. (the “LMPERS Action”), was filed on January 31, 2014, and additionally names as defendants, Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (collectively, Coyne, Solak, and Dixon Actions shall be referred to as the “Shareholder Actions”).

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges that the Company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, agreeing to an inadequate tender price, the adoption on January 15, 2014 of a Rights Agreement, and certain provisions in the Merger Agreement that allegedly made it less likely that the Board would be able to consider alternative acquisition proposals. The Coyne, Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was advised by a conflicted financial advisor. The Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was subject to material conflicts of interest in approving the Merger Agreement and that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing allegedly conflicted members of management to negotiate the transaction. The Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in approving the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (together with the exhibits and annexes thereto, as it may be amended or supplemented, the “Statement”) filed with the SEC on January 22, 2014, which allegedly contained material misrepresentations and omissions.

Each of the Shareholder Actions allege that Apollo aided and abetted the Board’s breaches of fiduciary duties. The Solak and Dixon Actions allege that CEC also aided and abetted such breaches, and the Solak and LMPERS Actions further allege that Parent and the Merger Sub aided and abetted such actions. The LMPERS Action further alleges that Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. aided and abetted such actions.

The Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of the transactions, damages, attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.

On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff in the Coyne Action filed an amended complaint (the “Coyne Amended Complaint”), and on January 30, 2014, the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed an amended complaint (the “Solak Amended Complaint”) (together, the “Amended Complaints”). The Amended Complaints incorporated all of the allegations in the original complaints, added allegations that the Board-approved Statement omitted certain material information, in further violation of the Board’s fiduciary duties, and requested an order directing the Board to disclose such allegedly-omitted material information. The Solak Amended Complaint also added allegations that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing an allegedly conflicted financial advisor and management to lead the sales process.

On March 7, 2014, the Coyne, Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions were consolidated into one action. On July 21, 2015 a consolidated class action petition was filed as the operative consolidated complaint by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust that continued to assert claims against CEC and its former directors; added The Goldman Sachs Group (“Goldman Sachs”) as a defendant; and removed all Apollo entities as defendants (“Consolidated Class Action Petition”). The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that the Company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an inadequate tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the Merger Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. The Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two members of the Company’s board who also served as the senior managers of the Company had material conflicts of interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board’s breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other things, to recover damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 22, 2015, the Company and its former directors filed a Motion to Dismiss and are currently awaiting the Court’s ruling. The Court has not yet set this case for trial. The Company believes the Consolidated Class Action Petition is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

On June 10, 2014, Magnetar Global Event Driven Fund Ltd., Spectrum Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd., Magnetar Capital Master Fund, Ltd., and Blackwell Partners LLC, as the purported beneficial owners of shares held as of record by the nominal petitioner Cede & Co., (the “Appraisal Petitioners”), filed an action for statutory appraisal under Kansas state law against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd, et al. v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., 2:14-cv-02279-RDR-KGS. The Appraisal Petitioners sought appraisal of 750,000 shares of common stock. The Company answered the complaint and filed a verified list of stockholders, as required under Kansas law. The parties completed discovery in the case. On December 11, 2015, the court scheduled the trial in the case for February 16, 2016. On January 20, 2016, the court rescheduled the trial to February 22, 2016. On January 26, 2016, the parties settled the litigation on terms that included the plaintiffs’ dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of complete releases, in exchange for the Company’s cash settlement. The settlement payment was accrued in Fiscal 2015 and is included in “Transaction, severance and related litigation costs” in our Consolidated Statements of Earnings.