Burger King 2006 Annual Report Download - page 38

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 38 of the 2006 Burger King annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 131

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131

The following table presents information regarding our properties as of June 30, 2006:
Leased
Building/
Land & Total
Owned(1) Land Building Leases Total
United States and Canada:
Company restaurantsÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 337 187 354 541 878
Franchisee-operated propertiesÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 466 263 198 461 927
Non-operating restaurant locations ÏÏÏÏ 35 31 12 43 78
OfficesÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Ì Ì 7 7 7
Total ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 838 481 571 1,052 1,890
International:
Company restaurantsÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 20 35 310 345 365
Franchisee-operated propertiesÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 4 Ì 135 135 139
Non-operating restaurant locations ÏÏÏÏ 1 Ì 28 28 29
OfficesÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Ì 3 7 10 10
Total ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 25 38 480 518 543
(1) Owned refers to properties where we own the land and the building.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Litigation
On September 5, 2002, a lawsuit was filed against McDonald's and us in the Superior Court of California
in Los Angeles County (Case No. BC280980) (Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. McDonald's
Corporation, Burger King Corporation, et al,) alleging that the defendants violated Proposition 65 and the
California Unfair Competition Act by failing to warn about the presence of acrylamide, a Proposition 65
regulated chemical, in french fries. The case was stayed for three years pending the outcome of a proposed
regulatory action by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (""OEHHA''), the lead
agency with primary jurisdiction for implementing Proposition 65. The court agreed to stay the case until the
agency proposed updated regulations for acrylamide in foods. In April 2005, the agency proposed new
regulations, including safe harbor warning language and a format for warnings to be provided on signs at retail
grocery stores or restaurants. On March 30, 2006, OEHHA withdrew its proposed regulations promising to
issue a new proposal in 60 days. No new proposals have been issued.
On August 26, 2005, the Attorney General for California filed a lawsuit against us and eight others in the
food industry, in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County (Case No. BC338956) (People of the
State of California, ex rel Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California v. Frito-Lay, Inc., et al.),
seeking an order providing for an unspecified warning to be provided to consumers regarding the presence of
acrylamide in french fries and an unspecified monetary payment. The Attorney General's case, the CERT case
and a number of other cases filed against other companies by three different private plaintiffs' groups alleging
similar violations were deemed related in January 2006 and assigned to a single judge in the Complex Litigation
Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court. On March 31, 2006, the court lifted the stay in the related cases,
allowing the matters to proceed. Discovery and motions practice has commenced in the related cases.
On July 24, 2006, we were served with a lawsuit against us and CKE Restaurants in the Superior Court of
California in Sacramento County (Case No. 06AS02168) (Leeman v. Burger King Corporation, et al.). The
complaint alleges that we violated Proposition 65 by failing to warn consumers about the presence of
chemicals known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (commonly known as PAHs) found in flame-broiled
meats, including our large flame-broiled burgers such as the Triple Whopper. The chemicals at issue are listed
in Proposition 65 as possible human carcinogens or reproductive toxicants.
26