Burger King 2011 Annual Report Download - page 27

Table of Contents
for our EMEA headquarters in Zug, Switzerland and our APAC headquarters in Singapore. We believe that our existing headquarters and other leased and owned
facilities are adequate to meet our current requirements.
The following table presents information regarding our restaurant properties as of December 31, 2011:
Leased
Owned(1) Land
Building/Land &
Building
Total
Leases Total
United States and Canada:
Company restaurants 295 201 443 644 939
Franchisee-operated properties 467 323 207 530 997
Non-operating restaurant locations — — 45 45 45
Offices and other(2) — — 5 5 5
Total 762 524 700 1,224 1,986
International:
Company restaurants 14 47 295 342 356
Franchisee-operated properties 4 3 77 80 84
Non-operating restaurant locations — 1 7 8 8
Offices and other(2) 1 — 14 14 15
Total 19 51 393 444 463
(1) Owned refers to properties where we own the land and the building.
(2) Other properties include a consumer research center and storage facilities.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Ramalco Corp. et al. v. Burger King Corporation, No. 09-43704CA05 (Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida). On July 30,
2008, BKC was sued by four Florida franchisees over our decision to mandate extended operating hours in the United States. The plaintiffs sought damages,
declaratory relief and injunctive relief. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ original complaint in November 2008. In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint. In August 2010, the court entered an order reaffirming the legal bases for dismissal of the original complaint, again holding that BKC had
the authority under its franchise agreements to mandate extended operating hours. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with
prejudice without either side paying any financial compensation or any change to BKC’s extended hours policy.
Castenada v. Burger King Corp. and Burger King Corporation., No. CV08-4262 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California). On
September 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint alleged that all 96 Burger King restaurants in California leased by the Company and operated by franchisees violate accessibility requirements under
federal and state law. In September 2009, the court issued a decision on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In its decision, the court limited the class
action to the 10 restaurants visited by the named plaintiffs, with a separate class of plaintiffs for each of the 10 restaurants and 10 separate trials. In March 2010,
the Company agreed to settle the lawsuit with respect to the 10 restaurants and, in July 2010, the court gave final approval to the settlement. In February 2011, a
class action lawsuit styled Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corporation, No. C11-00667 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) was filed
with respect to the other 86 restaurants. In January 2012, BKC agreed to settle the lawsuit. The parties are finalizing the terms of the proposed settlement which
will be submitted to the court for approval.
From time to time, we are involved in other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business relating to matters including, but not limited to,
disputes with franchisees, suppliers, employees and customers, as well as disputes over our intellectual property.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not Applicable.
26
Source: Burger King Holdings Inc, 10-K, March 14, 2012 Powered by Morningstar® Document Research℠