Commitments and Contingencies:

Leases

We lease certain venues 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 venue’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 1, 2017, are as follows:



	Capital			Operating
Fiscal Years	(in thousands)
2017	$	2,116		$	89,900
2018	2,187			87,978
2019	2,183			85,880
2020	2,215			84,535
2021	2,202			82,964
Thereafter	17,404			545,846
Future minimum lease payments	28,307			977,103
Less amounts representing interest	(14,238		)
Present value of future minimum lease payments	14,069
Less current portion	(467		)
Capital lease obligations, net of current portion	$	13,602

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




	Successor						Predecessor
	Fiscal Year				For the 317 Day Period Ended		For the 47 Day Period Ended
	2016		2015		December 28, 2014		February 14, 2014
	(in thousands)
Minimum rentals	$	96,953	$	98,023	$	77,498	$	12,480
Contingent rentals	217		338		117		36
	$	97,170	$	98,361	$	77,615	$	12,516

Rent expense of $1.2 million in 2016, $1.6 million in 2015, $0.9 million for the 317 day period ended December 28, 2014, and $0.1 million for the 47 day period ended February 14, 2014, 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 $15.1 million at January 1, 2017 and consisted primarily of obligations associated with the modernization of various information technology platforms and information technology data security service agreements, and the fixed price purchase agreements relating to beverage products. 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. All necessary loss accruals based on the probability and estimate of loss have been recorded.

Employment-Related Litigation: On January 27, 2014, former CEC Entertainment employee Franchesca Ford filed a purported class action lawsuit against CEC Entertainment 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 CEC Entertainment in California who were employed from January 27, 2010 to the present, and alleges violations of California state wage and hour laws. In March 2014, CEC Entertainment 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. In May 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a class-wide basis and we recorded a liability for the settlement. 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 CEC Entertainment's settlement payment. On March 24, 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement, and on November 18, 2016, the Court issued its order granting final approval of the class settlement. On December 5, 2016, pursuant to the Court's order and the parties' agreement, CEC Entertainment funded the class settlement.

On October 10, 2014, former venue General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a purported class action lawsuit against CEC Entertainment in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the “Sinohui Litigation”), claiming to represent other similarly-situated current and former General Managers of CEC Entertainment in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to certify a class based on allegations that CEC Entertainment wrongfully classified current and former California General Managers as exempt from overtime protections; that such General Managers worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest periods, and paid meal periods; and that CEC Entertainment failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements or to pay timely wages upon separation from employment, 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 also alleged that CEC Entertainment failed to reimburse General Managers for certain business expenses, including for personal cell phone usage and mileage, in violation of the California Labor Code; he also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). On December 5, 2014, CEC Entertainment removed the Sinohui Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Specifically, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to the extent that he sought to certify a class on Plaintiff's misclassification and wage statement claims, but certified a class with respect to Plaintiff's claims that CEC Entertainment had wrongfully failed to reimburse him for cell phone expenses and/or mileage. On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui's PAGA claim. The parties participated in mediation in October 2016, but were unable to reach an agreement on settlement at that time. Trial is currently scheduled for June 2017. 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 will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

Since the Court in the Sinohui Litigation issued its order denying certification of a class of California-based general managers on misclassification and wage statement claims, five lawsuits have been filed in California state court (the “California General Manager Litigation”). The plaintiffs in these actions include nine current and 12 former California General Managers asserting individual misclassification, wage statement, and expense reimbursement claims. On December 20, 2016, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit styled Heather Smith v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the “Smith Lawsuit”), and on December 21, 2016, CEC removed the Smith Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where it was assigned cause number 2:16-cv-009452. On January 17, 2017, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit styled Audrae Escobar, Christine Ortiz, and Debora Templeton v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the “Escobar Lawsuit”), and on January 18, 2017, CEC removed the Escobar Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where it was assigned cause number 2:17-cv-00428. On February 2, 2017, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit styled James Funk, Salvador Hernandez, Jr., Heather Larsen, Erika Lopez, and Angela Sisson v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the “Funk Lawsuit”), and on the same date, CEC removed the Funk Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where it was assigned cause number 3:17-cv-00214. We believe the Company has meritorious defenses in the California General Manager Litigation and we intend to vigorously contest it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the California General Manager Litigation, we currently believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

On January 30, 2017, former Technical Manager Kevin French filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that CEC Entertainment failed to pay overtime wages, failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements, failed to pay wages due upon separation of employment, and failed to reimburse for certain business expenses, including for mileage and personal cell phone usage, in violation of the California Labor Code and federal law. We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and we intend to vigorously defend it. Since the litigation is in its earliest stages, however, the Company does not yet have sufficient information to reach a good faith determination on the Company’s potential liability or exposure in the event that its defense is unsuccessful.

Litigation Related to the Merger: Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment had entered into a merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC and its subsidiaries merged with and into CEC Entertainment, with CEC Entertainment surviving the merger (the “Merger”), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC Entertainment, against A.P. VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., CEC Entertainment, CEC Entertainment's directors, Apollo, and Merger Sub (as defined in the Merger Agreement), in connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. These actions were consolidated into one action (the “Consolidated Shareholder Litigation”) in March 2014, and on July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action petition was filed as the operative consolidated complaint, asserting claims against CEC’s former directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group (“Goldman Sachs”) as a defendant, and removing all Apollo entities as defendants (the “Consolidated Class Action Petition”). The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that CEC Entertainment's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC Entertainment'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 CEC Entertainment's board who also served as the senior managers of CEC Entertainment 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. The Company has assumed the defense of the Consolidated Shareholder Litigation on behalf of CEC’s named former directors and Goldman Sachs pursuant to existing indemnity agreements. On March 23, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing on the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Petition and on March 1, 2017, the Special Master appointed by the Court issued a report recommending to the Court that the Consolidated Class Action Petition be dismissed in its entirety. We currently await the District Court’s decision whether to accept the Special Master’s recommendation. The Court has not yet set this case for trial. The Company continues to believe 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.

Peter Piper, Inc. Litigation: On September 8, 2016, Diane Jacobson filed a purported class action lawsuit against Peter Piper, Inc. (“Peter Piper”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson Division (the “Jacobson Litigation”). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-situated consumers who, within the two years prior to the filing of the Jacobson Litigation, received a printed receipt on which Peter Piper allegedly printed more than the last five digits of the consumer's credit/debit card number, in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. On November 11, 2016, Peter Piper filed a motion to dismiss the Jacobson Litigation. After the plaintiff filed her opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and Peter Piper filed its reply in support thereof, the motion was submitted to the Court for ruling on December 22, 2016. On February 2, 2017, the Court stayed the Jacobson Litigation pending the decision of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Noble v. Nevada Check Cab Corp., a case that presents an issue for decision that is relevant to the Peter Piper’s motion to dismiss. We believe Peter Piper has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and, should the Court overrule the motion to dismiss, we intend to vigorously defend it. Since the litigation is in its earliest stages, however, the Company does not yet have sufficient information to reach a good faith determination on Peter Piper's potential liability or exposure in the event that its defense is unsuccessful.