provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements brought in the class actions captioned Martha Perez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC624001), Maria Vega, et al. v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC649719), and Gonzalez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC712867). The settlement reached in principle in the Olvera, Perez, Vega, and Gonzalez actions resolves all potential claims from April 12, 2010 through April 1, 2019 that El Pollo Loco restaurant employees may have against El Pollo Loco for failure to pay for all compensation owed, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks and failure to provide itemized wage statements, among other wage and hour related claims. A $16.3 million accrual of an expected settlement amount related to this matter was recorded as of December 26, 2018, and the court formally approved the settlement on January 31, 2020. The settlement payment was made on February 28, 2020. Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are commonly filed against California employers. The Company fully expects to have to defend against similar lawsuits in the future.
On or about November 5, 2015, a purported Holdings shareholder filed a derivative complaint on behalf of Holdings in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain Holdings officers, directors and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C., under the caption Armen Galustyan v. Sather, et al. (Case No. 11676-VCL). The derivative complaint alleges that these defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Holdings and were unjustly enriched when they sold shares of Holdings at artificially inflated prices due to alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding EPL��s comparable store sales in the second quarter of 2015. The Holdings shareholder’s requested remedies include an award of compensatory damages to Holdings, as well as a court order to improve corporate governance by putting forward for stockholder vote certain resolutions for amendments to Holdings’ Bylaws or Certificate of Incorporation. The Holdings shareholder voluntarily dismissed the action on October 7, 2020. A second purported Holdings shareholder filed a derivative complaint on or about September 23, 2016, under the caption Diep v. Sather, CA 12760-VCL in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Diep action is also purportedly brought on behalf of Holdings, names the same defendants and asserts substantially the same claims on substantially the same alleged facts as does Galustyan. Defendants moved to stay or dismiss the Diep action.
On March 17, 2017, the Delaware court granted in part, and denied in part, the motion to stay the Diep action. The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On January 17, 2018, the court entered an order granting the parties’ stipulation staying all proceedings in the Diep action for five months or until the completion of an investigation of the allegations in the action by a special litigation committee of the Holdings board of directors (the “SLC”). On February 13, 2019, after concluding its investigation, the SLC filed a motion to dismiss the Diep action. The SLC filed its investigative report under seal as an exhibit to the motion to dismiss. Following discovery related to the SLC’s motion, on September 25, 2020, the SLC filed a motion to dismiss the Diep action. On April 23, 2021, the court held a hearing on the SLC’s motion to dismiss, and, on May 21, 2021, the Company filed a notice of proposed partial settlement of the Diep action. Subject to the approval of the court, the proposed settlement payment of $625,000 in cash by individual defendants will resolve all claims brought, or that could have been brought, against such defendants. The Company believes that the gain has currently not been realized or considered realizable under ASC 450, "Contingencies", and as of June 30, 2021, no entries have been recorded with regard to this case. On July 30, 2021, the court granted the SLC’s motion to dismiss with respect to the claims asserted against Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC.
Janice P. Handlers-Bryman and Michael D. Bryman v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. MC026045) (the “Lancaster Lawsuit”) was filed on February 9, 2016. Existing El Pollo Loco franchisees, Janice P. Handlers-Bryman and Michael D. Bryman, as individuals and in their capacities as trustees of the Handlers Bryman Trust (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed suit against us alleging, among other things, that we “imposed unreasonable time limitations” on their development of additional restaurant locations in Lancaster, California, and that we thereafter developed company-operated El Pollo Loco restaurants in the “market area” of Plaintiffs’ existing El Pollo Loco restaurant in Lancaster. Plaintiffs asserted claims against us for, among other things, (i) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (ii) intentional interference with prospective business, and (iii) unfair business practices. In addition to an unspecified amount of damages and costs of the lawsuit, Plaintiffs sought reformation of the contract, declaratory relief, disgorgement of alleged revenues and profits, injunctive relief, and a judicial mandate requiring us to either transfer the company-operated locations to Plaintiffs or to continuously disgorge to Plaintiffs the unjust enrichment allegedly obtained by us through the operation of the company-operated restaurants in Lancaster. We denied Plaintiffs’ allegations as the franchise agreement did not grant Plaintiffs any exclusive territorial rights and, instead, expressly reserved for us the right to open and operate - and the right to grant others the right to open and operate - El Pollo Loco restaurants “in the immediate vicinity of or adjacent to” Plaintiffs’ restaurant in Lancaster. On April 24, 2017, four days before the commencement of trial, Plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, of the Lancaster Lawsuit without any payment or other concession by us. The corresponding dismissal was entered by the court