COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Apr. 12, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal matters — The Company assesses contingencies, including litigation contingencies, to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in our financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of April 12, 2026, the Company had accruals of $17.1 million for all of its legal matters in aggregate, presented within “Accrued liabilities” on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. When evaluating litigation contingencies, we may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the availability of appellate remedies, insurance coverage related to the claim or claims in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matter. In addition, damage amounts claimed in litigation against us may be unsupported, exaggerated, or unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of our potential liability or financial exposure. The Company regularly reviews contingencies to determine the adequacy of the accruals and related disclosures. The ultimate amount of loss may differ from these estimates. Any estimate is not an indication of expected loss, if any, or of the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure and the ultimate amount of loss may differ materially from these estimates in the near term. Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc. — In August 2010, five former Jack in the Box employees instituted litigation in federal court in Oregon alleging claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Oregon wage and hour laws. The plaintiffs alleged that Jack in the Box failed to pay non-exempt employees for certain meal breaks and improperly made payroll deductions for shoe purchases and for workers’ compensation expenses, and later added additional claims relating to timing of final pay and related wage and hour claims involving employees of a franchisee. In 2016, the court dismissed the federal claims and those relating to franchise employees. In June 2017, the court granted class certification with respect to state law claims of improper deductions and late payment of final wages. The parties participated in a voluntary mediation on March 16, 2020, but the matter did not settle. On October 24, 2022, a jury awarded plaintiffs approximately $6.4 million in damages and penalties. On November 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion which was amended on April 20, 2026, remanding several issues back to the trial court for further proceedings. As of April 12, 2026, the Company has accrued the verdict amount above, as well as estimated prejudgment and post-judgment interest and fee award, for an additional $10.5 million. These amounts are included within “Accrued liabilities” on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of April 12, 2026. The Company will continue to accrue for post-judgment interest until the matter is resolved. The Company anticipates further appellate proceedings on the matter. J&D Restaurant Group — On April 17, 2019, the trustee for a bankrupt former franchisee filed a complaint generally alleging the Company wrongfully terminated the franchise agreements and unreasonably denied two prospective purchasers the former franchisee presented. The parties participated in a mediation in April 2021, and again in December 2022, but the matter did not settle. The trial commenced on January 9, 2023, and on February 8, 2023, the jury returned a verdict finding the Company had not breached any contracts in terminating the franchise agreements or denying the proposed buyers. However, while the jury also found the Company had not violated the California Unfair Practices Act, it found for the plaintiff on the claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and awarded $8.0 million in damages. On May 9, 2023, the court granted the Company’s post-trial motion, overturning the jury verdict and ordering the plaintiff take nothing on its claims. As a result, the Company reversed the prior $8.0 million accrual. The Plaintiff has appealed the trial court’s post-trial rulings. As part of the appeal, the parties participated in a mediation on March 18, 2025, but the matter did not settle. On October 9, 2025, the appellate court issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s take nothing judgment in favor of the Company. On February 4, 2026, the plaintiff filed a petition for the matter to be reviewed by the Texas Supreme Court. On March 13, 2026, the Texas Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s petition for review. As a result of this denial, during the quarter, the Company reversed the accrual associated with this claim. Del Taco — The transaction documents include an indemnification provision pursuant to which the Company may be required to indemnify Del Taco for certain losses incurred within one year following the transaction closing on December 22, 2025, but only with respect to specifically identified matters, and subject to an aggregate cap of $10.0 million. Refer to Note 4, Discontinued Operations, for additional information on the Del Taco sale. Other legal matters — In addition to the matters described above, we are subject to normal and routine litigation brought by former or current employees, customers, franchisees, vendors, landlords, shareholders, or others. We intend to defend ourselves in any such matters. Some of these matters may be covered, at least in part, by insurance or other third-party indemnity obligation. We record receivables from third party insurers when recovery has been determined to be probable. Lease guarantees — We remain contingently liable for certain leases relating to our former Qdoba business which we sold in fiscal 2018. Under the Qdoba Purchase Agreement, the buyer has indemnified the Company of all claims related to these guarantees. As of April 12, 2026, the maximum potential liability of future undiscounted payments under these leases is approximately $23.4 million. The lease terms extend for a maximum of approximately 12 more years and we would remain a guarantor of the leases in the event the leases are extended for any established renewal periods. In the event of default, we believe the exposure is limited due to contractual protections and recourse available in the lease agreements, as well as the Qdoba Purchase Agreement, including a requirement of the landlord to mitigate damages by re-letting the properties in default, and indemnity from the Buyer. The Company has not recorded a liability for these guarantees as we believe the likelihood of making any future payments is remote. Franchisee guarantees — The Company has an agreement for a financing structure with a lender to allow them to limit their exposure to risk, while they service franchise-owned locations. The agreement with the Company is to remain in effect until all franchisee obligations are paid in full. As of April 12, 2026, and in accordance with that arrangement, $2.0 million was held within “Restricted cash” on our condensed consolidated balance sheet, and the Company has an additional unfunded obligation of approximately $1.5 million. The Company has not recorded a liability for these unfunded obligations as we believe the likelihood of making any future payments is remote.

Legal matters — The Company assesses contingencies, including litigation contingencies, to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in our financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of April 12, 2026, the Company had accruals of $17.1 million for all of its legal matters in aggregate, presented within “Accrued liabilities” on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. When evaluating litigation contingencies, we may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the availability of appellate remedies, insurance coverage related to the claim or claims in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matter. In addition, damage amounts claimed in litigation against us may be unsupported, exaggerated, or unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of our potential liability or financial exposure. The Company regularly reviews contingencies to determine the adequacy of the accruals and related disclosures. The ultimate amount of loss may differ from these estimates. Any estimate is not an indication of expected loss, if any, or of the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure and the ultimate amount of loss may differ materially from these estimates in the near term.

Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc. — In August 2010, five former Jack in the Box employees instituted litigation in federal court in Oregon alleging claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Oregon wage and hour laws. The plaintiffs alleged that Jack in the Box failed to pay non-exempt employees for certain meal breaks and improperly made payroll deductions for shoe purchases and for workers’ compensation expenses, and later added additional claims relating to timing of final pay and related wage and hour claims involving employees of a franchisee. In 2016, the court dismissed the federal claims and those relating to franchise employees. In June 2017, the court granted class certification with respect to state law claims of improper deductions and late payment of final wages. The parties participated in a voluntary mediation on March 16, 2020, but the matter did not settle. On October 24, 2022, a jury awarded plaintiffs approximately $6.4 million in damages and penalties. On November 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion which was amended on April 20, 2026, remanding several issues back to the trial court for further proceedings. As of April 12, 2026, the Company has accrued the verdict amount above, as well as estimated prejudgment and post-judgment interest and fee award, for an additional $10.5 million. These amounts are included within “Accrued liabilities” on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of April 12, 2026. The

J&D Restaurant Group — On April 17, 2019, the trustee for a bankrupt former franchisee filed a complaint generally alleging the Company wrongfully terminated the franchise agreements and unreasonably denied two prospective purchasers the former franchisee presented. The parties participated in a mediation in April 2021, and again in December 2022, but the matter did not settle. The trial commenced on January 9, 2023, and on February 8, 2023, the jury returned a verdict finding the Company had not breached any contracts in terminating the franchise agreements or denying the proposed buyers. However, while the jury also found the Company had not violated the California Unfair Practices Act, it found for the plaintiff on the claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and awarded $8.0 million in damages. On May 9, 2023, the court granted the Company’s post-trial motion, overturning the jury verdict and ordering the plaintiff take nothing on its claims. As a result, the Company reversed the prior $8.0 million accrual. The Plaintiff has appealed the trial court’s post-trial rulings. As part of the appeal, the parties participated in a mediation on March 18, 2025, but the matter did not settle. On October 9, 2025, the appellate court issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s take nothing judgment in favor of the Company. On February 4, 2026, the plaintiff filed a petition for the matter to be reviewed by the Texas Supreme Court. On March 13, 2026, the Texas Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s petition for review. As a result of this denial, during the quarter, the Company reversed the accrual associated with this claim.

Del Taco — The transaction documents include an indemnification provision pursuant to which the Company may be required to indemnify Del Taco for certain losses incurred within one year following the transaction closing on December 22, 2025, but only with respect to specifically identified matters, and subject to an aggregate cap of $10.0 million. Refer to Note 4, Discontinued Operations, for additional information on the Del Taco sale.

Other legal matters — In addition to the matters described above, we are subject to normal and routine litigation brought by former or current employees, customers, franchisees, vendors, landlords, shareholders, or others. We intend to defend ourselves in any such matters. Some of these matters may be covered, at least in part, by insurance or other third-party indemnity obligation. We record receivables from third party insurers when recovery has been determined to be probable.

Lease guarantees — We remain contingently liable for certain leases relating to our former Qdoba business which we sold in fiscal 2018. Under the Qdoba Purchase Agreement, the buyer has indemnified the Company of all claims related to these guarantees. As of April 12, 2026, the maximum potential liability of future undiscounted payments under these leases is approximately $23.4 million. The lease terms extend for a maximum of approximately 12 more years and we would remain a guarantor of the leases in the event the leases are extended for any established renewal periods. In the event of default, we believe the exposure is limited due to contractual protections and recourse available in the lease agreements, as well as the Qdoba Purchase Agreement, including a requirement of the landlord to mitigate damages by re-letting the properties in default, and indemnity from the Buyer. The Company has not recorded a liability for these guarantees as we believe the likelihood of making any future payments is remote.

Franchisee guarantees — The Company has an agreement for a financing structure with a lender to allow them to limit their exposure to risk, while they service franchise-owned locations. The agreement with the Company is to remain in effect until all franchisee obligations are paid in full. As of April 12, 2026, and in accordance with that arrangement, $2.0 million was held within “Restricted cash” on our condensed consolidated balance sheet, and the Company has an additional unfunded obligation of approximately $1.5 million. The Company has not recorded a liability for these unfunded obligations as we believe the likelihood of making any future payments is remote.