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 September 25, 2020, after concluding its investigation, the SLC filed a motion to dismiss the Diep action and filed its investigative report under seal as an exhibit to the motion to dismiss.
On May 21, 2021, while the SLC’s motion to dismiss the Diep action was pending, the Company filed a notice of proposed partial settlement of the Diep action with respect to defendants Kay Bogeajis, Laurance Roberts, Stephen J. Sather, Edward J. Valle, Douglas K. Ammerman, and Samuel N. Borgese (collectively, the “Settling Defendants”). Defendant Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC (“Trimaran”) was not a party to the settlement. The court approved the settlement of $625,000, less Plaintiffs’ fees of $156,250, on September 10, 2021, and dismissed all claims brought, or that could have been brought, against Settling Defendants. In connection with this settlement, the Company received $469,000 in insurance proceeds, which was recorded within general and administrative expenses in the Company’s statement of income for the year ended December 29, 2021.
On July 30, 2021, the court granted the SLC’s motion to dismiss with respect to the claims asserted against remaining defendant Trimaran. On October 4, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s granting of the motion to dismiss against defendant Trimaran. Plaintiff filed its opening brief on December 6, 2021. SLC filed its answering brief on December 20, 2021 and the public version of the brief was filed on January 7, 2022. Plaintiffs filed the reply brief on January 4, 2022. The hearing on the appeal took place on March 30, 2022, and the parties are awaiting a ruling.
The Company is also involved in various other claims such as wage and hour and other legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. The outcomes of these actions are not predictable but the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, liquidity, or capital resources. A significant increase in the number of claims, or an increase in amounts owing under successful claims, could materially and adversely affect its business, condensed consolidated financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.