(10) Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is subject to various claims, possible legal actions and other matters arising in the normal course of business. Management does not expect disposition of these other matters to have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or liquidity of the Company. The Company expenses legal fees as incurred.

The legislation and regulations related to tax and unclaimed property matters are complex and subject to varying interpretations by both government authorities and taxpayers. The Company remits a variety of taxes and fees to various governmental authorities, including excise taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, and payroll taxes. The taxes and fees remitted by the Company are subject to review and audit by the applicable governmental authorities which could assert claims for additional assessments. Although management believes that the tax positions are reasonable and consequently there are no accrued liabilities for claims which may be asserted, various taxing authorities may challenge certain of the positions taken by the Company which may result in additional liability for taxes and interest. These tax positions are reviewed periodically based on the availability of new information, the lapsing of applicable statutes of limitations, the conclusion of tax audits, the identification of new tax contingencies, or the rendering of relevant court decisions. An unfavorable resolution of assessments by a governmental authority could negatively impact the Company’s results of operations and cash flows in future periods.

The Company is subject to unclaimed or abandoned property (escheat) laws which require the Company to turn over to certain state governmental authorities the property of others held by the Company that has been unclaimed for specified periods of time. The Company is subject to audit by individual U.S. states with regard to its escheatment practices. The Company has a pending voluntary disclosure agreement with the State of Delaware to resolve potential liability surrounding gift cards.

On February 26, 2018, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay minimum wages, permit required meal and rest breaks, and provide accurate wage statements, among other claims. On September 2, 2020, the class action lawsuit was amended to include two additional proposed class representatives. This lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California’s Private Attorney’s General Act in addition to other monetary payments (Quiroz Guerrero, et al. v. Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.; Case No RIC1804127). (the "Quiroz Guerrero Action"). Additionally, on July 29, 2021, September 17, 2021, and October 19, 2021, other former restaurant hourly employees filed complaints in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, the County of Los Angeles, and the County of Contra Costa alleging causes of action substantially similar to the allegations made in the Quiroz Guerrero Action (collectively, with the Quiroz Guerrero Action, the "Class Action Litigations"), which cases have been coordinated with the Quiroz Guerrero Action. On May 11, 2022, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed with the plaintiffs in the Class Action Litigations agreeing to a $6.0 million legal settlement. On June 8, 2022, the plaintiffs submitted a Petition for Coordination and Motion for Stay to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council, requesting assignment of a judge to determine whether it is appropriate to coordinate the Class Action Litigations to effectuate settlement approval in one venue. On September 12, 2022, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, granted the petition to coordinate the Class Action Litigations and recommended to the Chair of the Judicial Council that a judge of the Riverside County Superior Court be assigned to hear and determine the coordinated cases.  On October 27, 2022, the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, assigned a coordination trial judge to the coordinated actions. The parties must still agree to the terms of a final settlement agreement, which could vary in certain respects from the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, and such final settlement agreement remains subject to court approval.  The $6.0 million legal settlement amount remains accrued and unpaid on December 25, 2022.

The Company currently buys a majority of its beef from two suppliers. Although there are a limited number of beef suppliers, management believes that other suppliers could provide similar product on comparable terms. A change in suppliers, however, could cause supply shortages and a possible loss of sales, which would affect operating results adversely.

The Company could experience other potential impacts as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic that are not completely known at this time, including, but not limited to, disruptions to our workforce and suppliers, additional government regulations or legislation and charges from potential adjustments to the carrying amount of goodwill, indefinite-lived intangibles and long-lived impairment charges.  Our actual results  may differ materially from the Company's current estimates as the scope of the COVID-19 pandemic evolves.