Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | Commitments and Contingencies Franchise Agreement Our Kentucky franchise agreement, which requires the franchisee to remit continuing royalty fees at a specified percentage of the franchisee's gross sales revenue, provides that we, as franchisor, or its authorized representative, will: (a) provide franchisee with written schedules of all foods, food products, beverages, and other items for sale, and the furniture, fixtures, supplies and equipment necessary and required for the operation of the restaurant; (b) provide franchisee with a list of approved suppliers for the products and services necessary and required for the restaurant; (c) upon the reasonable written request of franchisee, render reasonable advisory services by telephone or in writing pertaining to the operation of the restaurant; (d) provide franchisee with a sample of the standard Zoës Kitchen menu, and any modifications to the menu; (e) loan franchisee a copy of the system's operating manual and any supplements to the manual that may be published by us; and, (f) provide franchisee the opportunity to participate in group purchasing programs that we may use, develop, sponsor or provide on terms and conditions determined solely by us. In addition, as a condition to the commencement of business by any of our franchises, the franchisee must attend and successfully complete our training program. The costs related to our franchise agreement are not significant. Litigation The Company is a defendant in four separate class actions. A first putative class action captioned Jonathan Reigrod, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Zoe's Kitchen, Inc., Greg Dollarhyde, Kevin Miles, Thomas Baldwin, Sue Collyns, Cordia Harrington and Alec Taylor (Case No. 1:18-cv-01536-UNA), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on October 3, 2018. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 78n(a) and 78t(a) and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9, against the Company and the director defendants in connection with the proposed Merger. The complaint alleges that the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company with the SEC on September 25, 2018 omitted certain material information. Specifically, plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the preliminary proxy statement omitted certain information relating to Mr. Ronald Shaich's role with the Company following the consummation of the Merger and his relationship with the Company's largest stockholder, and certain details concerning the financial analyses and valuation methodologies used by Piper Jaffray in connection with its fairness opinion. The complaint seeks (i) to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the defendants from proceeding with, and consummating, or closing the Merger unless and until the defendants disclose the information allegedly omitted from the preliminary proxy statement, (ii) rescission, to the extent already implemented, of the Merger Agreement or any of the terms thereof, or granting the plaintiff and the putative class rescissory damages, and (iii) the award of unspecified damages, costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and expenses, to the plaintiff and the putative class. A second putative class action captioned Mary Toth, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Zoe's Kitchen, Inc., Greg Dollarhyde, Thomas Baldwin, Sue Collyns, Cordia Harrington, Kevin Miles and Alec Taylor (Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-0706), was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division on October 5, 2018. The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties and claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the director defendants, and claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9, against the Company and the director defendants in connection with the proposed Merger. The complaint alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger through a "flawed and unfair process", failing to take steps to maximize the value of the Company and failing to disclose certain material information. The complaint also alleges that the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company with the SEC on September 25, 2018 omitted or misrepresented certain material information in violation of the Exchange Act, including, among other things, information regarding the following: any confidentiality agreements entered into between the Company and any interested third party; the role of the Special Committee; the role of Mr. Ronald Shaich in the sale process; and the financial analyses and valuation methodologies used by Piper Jaffray in connection with its fairness opinion. The complaint seeks (i) to enjoin defendants from proceeding with, and consummating, or closing the Merger; (ii) if the Merger is consummated, to rescind and set aside the Merger or to award plaintiff and the putative class rescissory damages; (iii) a declaration that the Merger Agreement was agreed to in breach of the director defendants' fiduciary duties and therefore unenforceable; (iv) to direct the director defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to commence a sales process that is "reasonably designed to secure the best possible consideration for" the Company; (v) an accounting for the unspecified damages sustained by the plaintiff and the putative class; and (vi) unspecified costs, including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and expenses, to the plaintiff. A third putative class action captioned Jo-Ann Calcagno, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Zoe’s Kitchen, Inc., Greg Dollarhyde, Thomas Baldwin, Sue Collyns, Cordia Harrington, Kevin Miles, and Alec Taylor, (Case No. 1:18-cv-01571-MN), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on October 11, 2018. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78n(a) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9, against the defendants in connection with the proposed Merger. The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omitted certain material information relating to the Merger, including, among other things, (i) certain details relating to the financial analyses and valuation methodologies used by Piper Jaffray in connection with its fairness opinion, (ii) certain provisions of the confidentiality agreements entered into by the Company and (iii) the fact that Ron Shaich will serve as Chairperson of the Surviving Corporation. The complaint seeks (i) to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with, and consummating, or closing the Merger, (ii) in the event the defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, to rescind it and set it aside or award rescissory damages, (iii) to direct the defendants to file a proxy statement that states all material facts required in it or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, (iv) to declare that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and (v) the award of unspecified costs, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees, to the plaintiff. A fourth putative class action captioned Jason Connole, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Zoe’s Kitchen, Inc., Greg Dollarhyde, Kevin Miles, Thomas Baldwin, Sue Collyns, Cordia Harrington and Alec Taylor (Case No. 1:99-mc-09999), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on October 12, 2018. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78n(a) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9, against the defendants in connection with the proposed Merger. The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omitted or misrepresents certain material information, including, among other things, certain information relating to (i) potential conflicts of interest faced by Company insiders and Piper Jaffray, (ii) the background process leading to the Merger and (iii) certain details concerning the financial analyses and valuation methodologies used by Piper Jaffray in connection with its fairness opinion. The complaint seeks (i) to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Merger, unless and until the defendants disclose the information allegedly omitted from the proxy statement, (ii) in the event the defendants consummate the Merger, to rescind it and set it aside or award rescissory damages, (iii) ) to declare that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and (iv) the award of unspecified costs, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees, to the plaintiff. The Company and the director defendants deny the allegations, believe that each of the above-referenced lawsuits is wholly without merit, and intend to vigorously defend these actions, as necessary. The Company believes that no additional disclosure is required to supplement any of the disclosures contained in the Company’s definitive proxy materials disseminated to holders of record of the Company’s common stock to enable such holders to make a fully informed voting decision whether to adopt the Merger Agreement. As such, the Company has made no accruals for these matters. However, to eliminate certain administrative burdens, unnecessary Company expenses and uncertainties inherent in any pending litigation, the Company has voluntarily made certain additional disclosures set forth in response to plaintiffs’ claims and allegations as referenced in the Company’s Form 8-K filed on October 29, 2018. We are currently involved in various claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of our business, including claims resulting from employment related matters. None of these claims, most of which are covered by insurance, has had a material effect on us, and as of the date of this report, we are not party to any material pending legal proceedings and are not aware of any claims that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims or an increase in amounts owing under successful claims could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. |