COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 29, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Government Investigations and Litigation In December 2021, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California (the “U.S. Attorney”) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) informed the Company that they had opened investigations relating to the Company and our former CEO, Andrew Wiederhorn, and were formally seeking documents and materials concerning, among other things, the Company’s December 2020 merger with Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. (“FCCG”), transactions between those entities and Mr. Wiederhorn, as well as compensation, extensions of credit and other benefits or payments received by Mr. Wiederhorn or his family from those entities prior to the merger. On May 10, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) indicted the Company on two violations of Section 402 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for directly and indirectly extending and/or arranging for the extension of credit in 2019 and 2020 to former CEO Andrew Wiederhorn in the amount of $2.65 million. The indictment included charges against Mr. Wiederhorn, the Company’s former CFO, Rebecca Hershinger, and the Company’s former tax advisor. On July 29, 2025, the DOJ moved to dismiss the indictment against all defendants in the case without prejudice. In May 2024, the SEC filed a complaint against the Company, claiming violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), 13(k), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and Rules 10b-5(b), 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 14a-3, and 14a-9 thereunder. The SEC’s claims pertain principally to allegations that, for fiscal periods covering 2017 through 2020, the Company failed to disclose certain related party transactions, failed to disclose the salaries of Mr. Wiederhorn’s adult children working at the Company, failed to maintain proper books and records and internal accounting controls, made false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s liquidity and use of proceeds from certain transactions, and directly or indirectly extended credit to Mr. Wiederhorn in the form of a personal loan. The SEC’s complaint also names Mr. Wiederhorn, Ms. Hershinger, and the Company’s SVP of Finance, Ron Roe, as defendants. The SEC is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil monetary penalties. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the SEC complaint. Derivative Litigation James Harris and Adam Vignola, derivatively on behalf of FAT Brands, Inc. v. Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi, Andrew Wiederhorn, Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC and Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc., and FAT Brands Inc., nominal defendant (Delaware Chancery Court, Case No. 2021-0511-NAC). On June 10, 2021, plaintiffs James Harris and Adam Vignola, putative stockholders of the Company, filed a stockholder derivative action (“Harris I”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery nominally on behalf of the Company against the Company’s current and former directors (Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi and Andrew Wiederhorn) and the Company’s current and former majority stockholders, Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC and Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc. Plaintiffs assert claims of breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets arising out of the Company’s December 2020 merger with Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc. Since it was originally filed, the parties engaged in motion practice and substantial discovery, and the Company’s Board appointed a Special Litigation Committee. In January 2025, the principal parties to this matter participated in a mediation in Wilmington, DE and agreed in principle to settle this matter and the Harris II litigation. A Stipulation of Settlement was signed by the parties in July 2025, and is subject to approval of the Delaware court, as well as non-objection by the United States. We are obligated to indemnify our current and former directors in connection with defense costs for the lawsuit and any related litigation, which may exceed coverage provided under our insurance policies, and thus could have an adverse effect on our financial condition. The lawsuit and any related litigation also may be time-consuming and divert the attention and resources of our management. James Harris and Adam Vignola, derivatively on behalf of FAT Brands, Inc. v. Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi, Andrew Wiederhorn and Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC, and FAT Brands Inc., nominal defendant (Delaware Chancery Court, Case No. 2022-0254-NAC). On March 17, 2022, plaintiffs James Harris and Adam Vignola, putative stockholders of the Company, filed a stockholder derivative action (“Harris II”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery nominally on behalf of the Company against the Company’s current and former directors (Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi and Andrew Wiederhorn) and the Company’s majority stockholder, Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC. Plaintiffs assert claims of breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Company’s June 2021 recapitalization transaction. Since it was originally filed, the parties engaged in motion practice and substantial discovery, and the Company’s Board appointed a Special Litigation Committee. In January 2025, the principal parties to this matter participated in a mediation in Wilmington, DE and agreed in principle to settle this matter and the Harris I litigation. A Stipulation of Settlement was signed by the parties in July 2025, and is subject to approval of the Delaware court, as well as non-objection by the United States. We are obligated to indemnify our current and former directors in connection with defense costs for the lawsuit and any related litigation, which may exceed coverage provided under our insurance policies, and thus could have an adverse effect on our financial condition. The lawsuit and any related litigation also may be time-consuming and divert the attention and resources of our management. Richard Collura v. Andrew A. Wiederhorn, et al. (Delaware Chancery Court, Case No. 2024-1305-NAC). In December 2024, plaintiff Richard Collura, a putative stockholder of the Company, filed a stockholder derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery nominally on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors (Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth Kuick, Robert Rosen, Ron Roe, John Allen, Kenneth Anderson, Donald Berchtold, Tyler Child, Lynne Collier, Mark Elenowitz, James Ellis, Peter Feinstein, Amy Forrestal, Matthew Green, Squire Junger, John Metz, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi, Carmen Vidal, Mason Wiederhorn, Taylor Wiederhorn and Thayer Wiederhorn), and the Company’s majority stockholder, Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Wiederhorn and certain of the other defendants engaged in an unlawful scheme to distribute money to Mr. Wiederhorn and his family for their own personal benefit through 2020, which they allege attracted the attention of the U.S. Attorney’s office and the SEC, and that the Company indicated in public statements and filings that it was cooperating with the government investigations but allegedly was not actually cooperating and investigating the scheme, which caused the Company’s stock price to fall. Defendants dispute the premises and allegations of the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. On June 2, 2025, defendants Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth Kuick, Robert Rosen, Mason Wiederhorn, Taylor Wiederhorn, Thayer Wiederhorn, and Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC filed their answer to plaintiff’s complaint. The court subsequently granted defendants Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi, John Allen, Tyler Child, Lynne Collier, Mark Elenowitz, James Ellis, Peter Feinstein, Matthew Green, John Metz, Kenneth Anderson, and Amy Forrestal an extension of time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint to September 23, 2025. We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit. This lawsuit does not assert any claims against the Company. However, subject to certain limitations, we are obligated to indemnify our current and former directors in connection with defense costs for the lawsuit and any related litigation, which may exceed coverage provided under our insurance policies, and thus could have an adverse effect on our financial condition. The lawsuit and any related litigation also may be time-consuming and divert the attention and resources of our management. Other Litigation Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-04775-MWF-MAA). On June 7, 2024, plaintiff Mitchell Kates, a putative investor in the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “1934 Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements and omitted material facts necessary to make statements not misleading in the Company’s reports filed with the SEC under the 1934 Act related to the subject matter of the government investigations and litigation discussed above, the Company’s handling of these matters and its cooperation with the government. Plaintiff alleges that the Company’s public statements wrongfully inflated the trading price of the Company’s common stock, preferred stock and warrants. Plaintiff is seeking to certify the complaint as a class action and is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On February 21, 2025, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead counsel. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint against defendants on April 6, 2025, which defendants moved to dismiss on June 6, 2025. Defendants’ motion is set to be heard on September 15, 2025. As this matter is still in the early stages, we cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit. Stratford Holding LLC v. Foot Locker Retail Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Case No. 5:12-cv-772-HE). In 2012 and 2013, two property owners in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma sued numerous parties, including Foot Locker Retail Inc. and our subsidiary Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. (now known as Fog Cutter Acquisition, LLC), for alleged environmental contamination on their properties, stemming from dry cleaning operations on one of the properties. The property owners seek damages in the range of $12.0 million to $22.0 million. From 2002 to 2008, a former Fog Cutter subsidiary managed a lease portfolio, which included the subject property. Fog Cutter denies any liability, although it did not timely respond to one of the property owners’ complaints and several of the defendants’ cross-complaints and thus is in default. The parties are currently conducting discovery. The court has vacated the current trial date and has not yet reset the trial date. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, however, reserves have been recorded on the balance sheet of FAT Brands relating to this litigation. There can be no assurance that the defendants will be successful in defending against these actions. SBN FCCG LLC v FCCGI (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BS172606). SBN FCCG LLC (“SBN”) filed a complaint against Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc. (“FCCG”) in New York state court for an indemnification claim (the “NY case”) stemming from an earlier lawsuit in Georgia regarding a certain lease portfolio formerly managed by a former FCCG subsidiary. On February 28, 2018, SBN obtained a final judgment in the NY case for a total of $0.7 million, which included $0.2 million in interest dating back to March 2012. SBN then obtained a sister state judgment in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BS172606 (the “California case”), which included the $0.7 million judgment from the NY case, plus additional statutory interest and fees, for a total judgment of $0.7 million. In May 2018, SBN filed a cost memo, requesting an additional $12,411 in interest to be added to the judgment in the California case, for a total of $0.7 million. In May 2019, the parties agreed to settle the matter for $0.6 million, which required the immediate payment of $0.1 million, and the balance to be paid in August 2019. FCCG wired $0.1 million to SBN on May 31, 2019, but has not yet paid the remaining balance of $0.5 million. The parties have not entered into a formal settlement agreement, and they have not yet discussed the terms for the payment of the remaining balance. SBN FCCG LLC v FCCGI (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 650197/2023). On January 13, 2023, SBN filed another complaint against FCCG in New York state court for an indemnification claim stemming from a lawsuit in Oklahoma City regarding the same lease portfolio formerly managed by Fog Cap (the “OKC Litigation”), and a bankruptcy proceeding involving Fog Cap (the “Bankruptcy Proceeding”). SBN alleges that under a February 2008 stock purchase agreement, Fog Cutter is required to indemnify SBN and its affiliates. According to the complaint, SBN has, at the time of filing the complaint, incurred costs subject to indemnification of approximately $12 million. On March 11, 2024, the court issued an order granting FCCG’s motion to dismiss SBN’s complaint without prejudice to refile the complaint, if at all, once the underlying proceedings (the OKC Litigation and the Bankruptcy Proceeding) were complete. On April 10, 2024, SBN filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's order dismissing SBN's complaint. We are unable at this time to express any opinion as to the eventual outcome of this matter or the possible range of loss, if any. The Company is involved in other claims and legal proceedings from time-to-time that arise in the ordinary course of business, including those involving the Company’s franchisees. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources. As of June 29, 2025, the Company had accrued an aggregate of $5.1 million the specific matters mentioned above and claims and legal proceedings involving franchisees as of that date.

In December 2021, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California (the “U.S. Attorney”) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) informed the Company that they had opened investigations relating to the Company and our former CEO, Andrew Wiederhorn, and were formally seeking documents and materials concerning, among other things, the Company’s December 2020 merger with Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. (“FCCG”), transactions between those entities and Mr. Wiederhorn, as well as compensation, extensions of credit and other benefits or payments received by Mr. Wiederhorn or his family from those entities prior to the merger.

On May 10, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) indicted the Company on two violations of Section 402 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for directly and indirectly extending and/or arranging for the extension of credit in 2019 and 2020 to former CEO Andrew Wiederhorn in the amount of $2.65 million. The indictment included charges against Mr. Wiederhorn, the Company’s former CFO, Rebecca Hershinger, and the Company’s former tax advisor. On July 29, 2025, the DOJ moved to dismiss the indictment against all defendants in the case without prejudice.

In May 2024, the SEC filed a complaint against the Company, claiming violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), 13(k), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and Rules 10b-5(b), 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 14a-3, and 14a-9 thereunder. The SEC’s claims pertain principally to allegations that, for fiscal periods covering 2017 through 2020, the Company failed to disclose certain related party transactions, failed to disclose the salaries of Mr. Wiederhorn’s adult children working at the Company, failed to maintain proper books and records and internal accounting controls, made false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s liquidity and use of proceeds from certain transactions, and directly or indirectly extended credit to Mr. Wiederhorn in the form of a personal loan. The SEC’s complaint also names Mr. Wiederhorn, Ms. Hershinger, and the Company’s SVP of Finance, Ron Roe, as defendants. The SEC is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil monetary penalties. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the SEC complaint.

James Harris and Adam Vignola, derivatively on behalf of FAT Brands, Inc. v. Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi, Andrew Wiederhorn, Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC and Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc., and FAT Brands Inc., nominal defendant (Delaware Chancery Court, Case No. 2021-0511-NAC). On June 10, 2021, plaintiffs James Harris and Adam Vignola, putative stockholders of the Company, filed a stockholder derivative action (“Harris I”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery nominally on behalf of the Company against the Company’s current and former directors (Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi and Andrew Wiederhorn) and the Company’s current and former majority stockholders, Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC and Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc. Plaintiffs assert claims of breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets arising out of the Company’s December 2020 merger with Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc. Since it was originally filed, the parties engaged in motion practice and substantial discovery, and the Company’s Board appointed a Special Litigation Committee. In January 2025, the principal parties to this matter participated in a mediation in Wilmington, DE and agreed in principle to settle this matter and the Harris II litigation. A Stipulation of Settlement was signed by the parties in July 2025, and is subject to approval of the Delaware court, as well as non-objection by the United States. We are obligated to indemnify our current and former directors in connection with defense costs for the lawsuit and any related litigation, which may exceed coverage provided under our insurance policies, and thus could have an adverse effect on our financial condition. The lawsuit and any related litigation also may be time-consuming and divert the attention and resources of our management.

James Harris and Adam Vignola, derivatively on behalf of FAT Brands, Inc. v. Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi, Andrew Wiederhorn and Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC, and FAT Brands Inc., nominal defendant (Delaware Chancery Court, Case No. 2022-0254-NAC). On March 17, 2022, plaintiffs James Harris and Adam Vignola, putative stockholders of the Company, filed a stockholder derivative action (“Harris II”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery nominally on behalf of the Company against the Company’s current and former directors (Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi and Andrew Wiederhorn) and the Company’s majority stockholder, Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC. Plaintiffs assert claims of breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Company’s June 2021 recapitalization transaction. Since it was originally filed, the parties engaged in motion practice and substantial discovery, and the Company’s Board appointed a Special Litigation Committee. In January 2025, the principal parties to this matter participated in a mediation in Wilmington, DE and agreed in principle to settle this matter and the Harris I litigation. A Stipulation of Settlement was signed by the parties in July 2025, and is subject to approval of the Delaware court, as well as non-objection by the United States. We are obligated to indemnify our current and former directors in connection with defense costs for the lawsuit and any related litigation, which may exceed coverage provided under our insurance policies, and thus could have an adverse effect on our financial condition. The lawsuit and any related litigation also may be time-consuming and divert the attention and resources of our management.

Richard Collura v. Andrew A. Wiederhorn, et al. (Delaware Chancery Court, Case No. 2024-1305-NAC). In December 2024, plaintiff Richard Collura, a putative stockholder of the Company, filed a stockholder derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery nominally on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors (Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth Kuick, Robert Rosen, Ron Roe, John Allen, Kenneth Anderson, Donald Berchtold, Tyler Child, Lynne Collier, Mark Elenowitz, James Ellis, Peter Feinstein, Amy Forrestal, Matthew Green, Squire Junger, John Metz, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi, Carmen Vidal, Mason Wiederhorn, Taylor Wiederhorn and Thayer Wiederhorn), and the Company’s majority stockholder, Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Wiederhorn and certain of the other defendants engaged in an unlawful scheme to distribute money to Mr. Wiederhorn and his family for their own personal benefit through 2020, which they allege attracted the attention of the U.S. Attorney’s office and the SEC, and that the Company indicated in public statements and filings that it was cooperating with the government investigations but allegedly was not actually cooperating and investigating the scheme, which caused the Company’s stock price to fall. Defendants dispute the premises and allegations of the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. On June 2, 2025, defendants Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth Kuick, Robert Rosen, Mason Wiederhorn, Taylor Wiederhorn, Thayer Wiederhorn, and Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC filed their answer to plaintiff’s complaint. The court subsequently granted defendants Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi, John Allen, Tyler Child, Lynne Collier, Mark Elenowitz, James Ellis, Peter Feinstein, Matthew Green, John Metz, Kenneth Anderson, and Amy Forrestal an extension of time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint to September 23, 2025. We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit. This lawsuit does not assert any claims against the Company. However, subject to certain limitations, we are obligated to indemnify our current and former directors in connection with defense costs for the lawsuit and any related litigation, which may exceed coverage provided under our insurance policies, and thus could have an adverse effect on our financial condition. The lawsuit and any related litigation also may be time-consuming and divert the attention and resources of our management.

Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-04775-MWF-MAA). On June 7, 2024, plaintiff Mitchell Kates, a putative investor in the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “1934 Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements and omitted material facts necessary to make statements not misleading in the Company’s reports filed with the SEC under the 1934 Act related to the subject matter of the government investigations and litigation discussed above, the Company’s handling of these matters and its cooperation with the government. Plaintiff alleges that the Company’s public statements wrongfully inflated the trading price of the Company’s common stock, preferred stock and warrants. Plaintiff is seeking to certify the complaint as a class action and is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On February 21, 2025, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead counsel. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint against defendants on April 6, 2025, which defendants moved to dismiss on June 6, 2025. Defendants’ motion is set to be heard on September 15, 2025. As this matter is still in the early stages, we cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit.

Stratford Holding LLC v. Foot Locker Retail Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Case No. 5:12-cv-772-HE). In 2012 and 2013, two property owners in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma sued numerous parties, including Foot Locker Retail Inc. and our subsidiary Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. (now known as Fog Cutter Acquisition, LLC), for alleged environmental contamination on their properties, stemming from dry cleaning operations on one of the properties. The property owners seek damages in the range of $12.0 million to $22.0 million. From 2002 to 2008, a former Fog Cutter subsidiary managed a lease portfolio, which included the subject property. Fog Cutter denies any liability, although it did not timely respond to one of the property owners’ complaints and several of the defendants’ cross-complaints and thus is in default. The parties are currently conducting discovery. The court has vacated the current trial date and has not yet reset the trial date. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, however, reserves have been recorded on the balance sheet of FAT Brands relating to this litigation. There can be no assurance that the defendants will be successful in defending against these actions.

SBN FCCG LLC v FCCGI (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BS172606). SBN FCCG LLC (“SBN”) filed a complaint against Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc. (“FCCG”) in New York state court for an indemnification claim (the “NY case”) stemming from an earlier lawsuit in Georgia regarding a certain lease portfolio formerly managed by a former FCCG subsidiary. On February 28, 2018, SBN obtained a final judgment in the NY case for a total of $0.7 million, which included $0.2 million in interest dating back to March 2012. SBN then obtained a sister state judgment in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BS172606 (the “California case”), which included the $0.7 million judgment from the NY case, plus additional statutory interest and fees, for a total judgment of $0.7 million. In May 2018, SBN filed a cost memo, requesting an additional $12,411 in interest to be added to the judgment in the California case, for a total of $0.7 million. In May 2019, the parties agreed to settle the matter for $0.6 million, which required the immediate payment of $0.1 million, and the balance to be paid in August 2019. FCCG wired $0.1 million to SBN on May 31, 2019, but has not yet paid the remaining balance of $0.5 million. The parties have not entered into a formal settlement agreement, and they have not yet discussed the terms for the payment of the remaining balance.

SBN FCCG LLC v FCCGI (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 650197/2023). On January 13, 2023, SBN filed another complaint against FCCG in New York state court for an indemnification claim stemming from a lawsuit in Oklahoma City regarding the same lease portfolio formerly managed by Fog Cap (the “OKC Litigation”), and a bankruptcy proceeding involving Fog Cap (the “Bankruptcy Proceeding”). SBN alleges that under a February 2008 stock purchase agreement, Fog Cutter is required to indemnify SBN and its affiliates. According to the complaint, SBN has, at the time of filing the complaint, incurred costs subject to indemnification of approximately $12 million. On March 11, 2024, the court issued an order granting FCCG’s motion to dismiss SBN’s complaint without prejudice to refile the complaint, if at all, once the underlying proceedings (the OKC Litigation and the Bankruptcy Proceeding) were complete. On April 10, 2024, SBN filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's order dismissing SBN's complaint. We are unable at this time to express any opinion as to the eventual outcome of this matter or the possible range of loss, if any.

The Company is involved in other claims and legal proceedings from time-to-time that arise in the ordinary course of business, including those involving the Company’s franchisees. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources. As of June 29, 2025, the Company had accrued an aggregate of $5.1 million the specific matters mentioned above and claims and legal proceedings involving franchisees as of that date.