Burger King 2009 Annual Report Download - page 37

Table of Contents
The following table presents information regarding our restaurant properties as of June 30, 2009:
Leased
Building/
Land & Total
Owned(1) Land Building Leases Total
United States and Canada:
Company restaurants 357 219 467 686 1,043
Franchisee−operated properties 441 300 200 500 941
Non−operating restaurant locations 18 7 7 14 32
Offices — — 6 6 6
Total 816 526 680 1,206 2,022
International:
Company restaurants 20 44 322 366 386
Franchisee−operated properties 3 1 93 94 97
Non−operating restaurant locations 1 7 30 37 38
Offices 1 — 10 10 11
Total 25 52 455 507 532
(1) Owned refers to properties where we own the land and the building.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Ramalco Corp. et al. v. Burger King Corporation, Case No. 09−43704CA05 (Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade
County, Florida). On July 30, 2008, we were sued by four Florida franchisees over our decision to mandate extended operating hours in
the United States. The plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief. We have a motion to dismiss before the court.
The judge in the case has asked to hear live testimony from witnesses on both sides before he makes his decision on the motion. While
we believe we have the right under our franchise agreement to mandate extended operating hours, we are unable to predict the ultimate
outcome of this litigation.
Castaneda v. Burger King Corp. and Burger King Holdings, Inc., No. CV08−4262 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California). On September 10, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that all Burger King restaurants in California leased by BKC and operated by
franchisees violate accessibility requirements under federal and state law. The plaintiffs seek injunction relief, statutory damages,
attorney’s fees and costs. The hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is set for September 17, 2009. We intend to
vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit, but we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation.
National Franchisee Association v. Burger King Corporation and The Coca−Cola Company, No. 09 CV 939 W NLS and National
Franchisee Association v. Burger King Corporation and Dr Pepper Snapple Group f/k/a Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., Case No. 09 939 W
NLS (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California). We are a party to written agreements with The Coca−Cola Company
and Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. pursuant to which these companies supply soft drinks to Burger King restaurants in the United States.
Under these agreements, the soft drink companies are required to pay certain amounts, known as “Restaurant Operating Funds”, based
on the volume of syrup purchased by the restaurants. Historically, the soft drink companies have paid the entire amount of the
Restaurant Operating Funds to the restaurants. However, in April 2009, we announced that beginning January 1, 2010, a portion of
these funds would be paid directly to us for use as specified in the soft drink agreements. The National Franchisee Association, Inc.
filed these two class action lawsuits on May 4, 2009, claiming to represent Burger King franchisees and seeking third party beneficiary
status and declaratory relief. The complaints allege that BKC and the soft drink companies did not have the right to amend our
agreements to reduce the portion of Restaurant Operating Funds paid directly to the restaurants without the franchisees’ consent. We
intend to
35