Print Page  |  Close Window

SEC Filings

10-Q
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL INC filed this Form 10-Q on 07/26/2017
Entire Document
 << Previous Page | Next Page >>

Receipt of Grand Jury Subpoenas   

On January 28, 2016, we were served with a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in connection with an official criminal investigation being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, in conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations.  The subpoena requires the production of documents and information related to company-wide food safety matters dating back to January 1, 2013.  We received a follow-up subpoena on July 19, 2017 requesting information related to illness incidents associated with a single Chipotle restaurant in Sterling, Virginia. We intend to continue to fully cooperate in the investigation.  It is not possible at this time to determine whether we will incur, or to reasonably estimate the amount of, any fines or penalties in connection with the investigation pursuant to which the subpoena was issued.   

Shareholder Derivative Actions   

On April 6, 2016, Uri Skorski filed a shareholder derivative action in Colorado state court in Denver, Colorado, alleging that our Board of Directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties in connection with our alleged failure to disclose material information about our food safety policies and procedures, and also alleging that our Board of Directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties in connection with allegedly excessive compensation awarded from 2011 to 2015 under our stock incentive plan. On April 14, 2016, Mark Arnold and Zachary Arata filed a shareholder derivative action in Colorado state court in Denver, Colorado, making largely the same allegations as the Skorski complaint.  On May 26, 2016, the court issued an order consolidating the Skorski and Arnold/Arata actions into a single case. On August 8, 2016, Sean Gubricky filed a shareholder derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging that our Board of Directors and certain officers failed to institute proper food safety controls and policies, issued materially false and misleading statements in violation of federal securities laws, and otherwise breached their fiduciary duties to us.  On September 1, 2016, Ross Weintraub filed a shareholder derivative action in Colorado state court in Denver, Colorado, making largely the same allegations as the Gubricky complaint.  On March 27, 2017, the Weintraub case was consolidated with the Skorski and Arnold/Arata action into a single case.  On December 27, 2016, Cyrus Lashkari filed a shareholder derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, making largely the same allegations as the foregoing shareholder derivative complaints.  Each of these actions purports to state a claim for damages on our behalf, and is based on statements in our SEC filings and related public disclosures, as well as media reports and company records. We intend to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from these cases.

Shareholder Class Actions   

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of our common stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016.  The complaint purports to state claims against us, each of the co-Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class period and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules, based on our alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose material information about our quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee health. The complaint asserts that those failures and related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the market price of our stock was artificially inflated during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees and other costs.  On March 8, 2017, the court granted our motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave to amend.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2017.   Additionally, on July 20, 2017, Elizabeth Kelly filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of our common stock between February 5, 2016 and July 19, 2017, with claims and factual allegations similar to the Ong complaint, based primarily on media reports regarding illnesses associated with a Chipotle restaurant in Sterling, Virginia.  We intend to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the cases.   

Miscellaneous

We are involved in various other claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims under which we incur greater liabilities than we currently anticipate, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

8

 


 

 << Previous Page | Next Page >>