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 December 31, 2017, are as follows:



	Capital			Operating
Fiscal Years	(in thousands)
2018	$	2,188		$	91,186
2019	2,185			88,751
2020	2,216			87,082
2021	2,203			85,465
2022	2,184			83,997
Thereafter	15,222			495,933
Future minimum lease payments	26,198			932,414
Less amounts representing interest	(12,592		)
Present value of future minimum lease payments	13,606
Less current portion	(596		)
Capital lease obligations, net of current portion	$	13,010

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



	Fiscal Year
	2017		2016		2015
	(in thousands)
Minimum rentals	$	96,927	$	96,953	$	98,023
Contingent rentals	156		217		338
	$	97,083	$	97,170	$	98,361

Rent expense of $1.2 million in 2017, $1.2 million in 2016 and $1.6 million in 2015, 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 $13.9 million at December 31, 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 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. After participating in mediation on April 19, 2017, the parties agreed to settle all of Sinohui’s individual and class claims. Pursuant to the basic terms of their settlement, Sinohui will grant a complete release to CEC Entertainment on behalf of himself and the class of all claims that he asserted or could have asserted against the Company, based on the facts that gave rise to the certified reimbursement claim in the Sinohui Litigation, in exchange for the Company’s settlement payment. On December 13, 2017, the Court entered its order granting preliminary approval of the parties’ settlement and setting a final fairness hearing for June 15, 2018. The order requires Plaintiff to file his motion for final approval of the parties’ settlement no later than April 27, 2018. Based on the Court’s order, the settlement of this lawsuit should be funded and concluded during the second quarter of 2018. The settlement of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

After 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, six lawsuits were filed against the Company 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. Between December 20, 2016 and April 21, 2017 the Company filed initial responses to each of the lawsuits and removed them all to Federal District Court.

As part of the settlement reached by the parties in the Sinohui Litigation, described above, the parties also agreed to settle the California General Manager Litigation. Pursuant to the basic terms of their comprehensive settlement, each of the Plaintiffs granted a complete release to CEC Entertainment of all claims that he or she asserted or could have asserted against the Company based on the facts that gave rise to the California General Manager Litigation in exchange for the Company’s settlement payments to each of them. The comprehensive settlement of these lawsuits was concluded and each of these cases was dismissed in August 2017. The settlement of these actions did 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “French Federal Court Lawsuit”), 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, and seeking to certify separate classes on his federal and state claims. On October 30, 2017, the parties conducted a mediation. At the conclusion of the mediation, the parties agreed to settle all of French’s class and individual claims. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, on November 14, 2017, the Federal Court Lawsuit was dismissed, and on November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a new lawsuit in Superior Court of San Bernadino County, California (the “French State Court Lawsuit”). The French State Court Lawsuit carried forward only the California state law claims alleging a failure to reimburse for business expenses, and sought to certify a class of CEC California Senior Assistant Managers, Assistant Managers, Technical Managers and Assistant Technical Managers who were authorized to drive on behalf of CEC from January 30, 2013 through April 27, 2018. On December 20, 2017, further pursuant to the parties’ settlement, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement. We expect that the settlement will be concluded and the case dismissed by the end of the third quarter of 2018. The settlement of this action will 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 CEC Entertainment had entered into an agreement (“Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC (“Apollo”) 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 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. On March 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master’s report and recommendation with the Kansas court and separately filed a motion with the Special Master to amend the complaint as to Goldman Sachs, but not objecting to the dismissal of CEC or its former directors. On November 20, 2017, the Special Master filed a Supplemental Report recommending to the Court that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend be denied; if the District Court accepts the Special Master’s supplemental recommendations, the case will be dismissed in its entirety. Both remaining parties (Plaintiffs and Goldman Sachs) filed objections to the Supplemental Report on December 22, 2017, and the parties filed responses to these objections on February 16, 2018. The District Court has not yet set this case for trial. 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 presented an issue for decision that is relevant to Peter Piper’s motion to dismiss. On March 9, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in the Noble case, setting precedent that favors Peter Piper’s position in the Jacobson Litigation. Based on the appellate court’s decision in that case, on March 15, 2018 Peter Piper filed a motion to lift the stay and requesting that the trial court grant its 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, 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.