CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL INC - Quarter Report: 2013 March (Form 10-Q)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013

or

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission File Number: 1-32731

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (303) 595-4000

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

As of April 15, 2013 there were 30,910,619 shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value of $0.01 per share outstanding.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

PART I

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet

(in thousands, except per share data)

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

1

Table of Contents

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income and Comprehensive Income

(unaudited)

(in thousands, except per share data)

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

2

Table of Contents

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

(unaudited)

(in thousands)

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited)

(dollar and share amounts in thousands, unless otherwise specified)

1. Basis of Presentation

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation, develops and operates fast-casual, fresh Mexican food restaurants throughout the United States. The Company also has five restaurants in Canada, six in London, England, and one in Paris, France. As of March 31, 2013, the Company operated 1,458 restaurants, including one ShopHouse Southeast Asian Kitchen. The Company has transitioned the management of its operations from six regions to seven regions and has aggregated its operations to one reportable segment.

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial statements and pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments consisting of normal recurring adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of its financial position and results of operations. Interim results of operations are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be achieved for the full year. The financial statements and related notes do not include all information and footnotes required by U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for annual reports. This quarterly report should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Certain amounts in prior periods have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. During the first quarter of 2013, the Company reclassified amounts related to lease financing liabilities from deemed landlord financing to other liabilities, and from current portion of deemed landlord financing to accrued liabilities. Such reclassifications did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The Company has evaluated subsequent events and transactions for potential recognition or disclosure in the financial statements through the day the financial statements are issued.

2. Adoption of New Accounting Principles

Effective January 1, 2013, the Company adopted Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2013-02, “Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income.” The adoption of ASU 2013-02 concerns presentation and disclosure only and did not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

3. Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The carrying value of the Company’s cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and accounts payable approximate fair value because of their short-term nature. Investments, all of which are classified as held-to-maturity, are carried at amortized cost, which approximates fair value. Investments consist of U.S. treasury notes and CDARS, certificates of deposit placed through an account registry service, with maturities up to approximately two years. Fair market value of U.S. treasury notes is measured using level 1 inputs (quoted prices for identical assets in active markets) and fair market value of CDARS is measured based on level 2 inputs (quoted prices for identical assets in markets that are not active).

The Company also maintains a rabbi trust to fund obligations under a deferred compensation plan. Amounts in the rabbi trust are invested in mutual funds, which are designated as trading securities and carried at fair value, and are included in other assets in the consolidated balance sheet. Fair market value of mutual funds is measured using level 1 inputs (quoted prices for identical assets in active markets). The fair value of the investments in the rabbi trust was $11,830 and $10,037 as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The Company records trading gains and losses in general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of income, along with the offsetting amount related to the increase or decrease in deferred compensation to reflect its exposure of the deferred plan liability. For the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company recorded $284 and $201, respectively, of unrealized gains on investments held in the rabbi trust.

4. Income Taxes

In January 2013, the United States Congress authorized, and the President signed into law, certain federal tax credits that will be reflected in the Company’s U.S. tax return for 2012. However, since the law was enacted in 2013, the financial statement benefit of such credits totaling $3,275 was reflected in the provision for income taxes in the consolidated statement of income and comprehensive income during the three months ended March 31, 2013, benefitting the tax rate by 2.7% in the quarter.

4

Table of Contents

5. Shareholders’ Equity

The Company has announced authorizations by its Board of Directors of repurchases of shares of common stock, which in the aggregate authorized expenditures of up to $700,000. Under the remaining repurchase authorizations, shares may be purchased from time to time in open market transactions, subject to market conditions.

On November 20, 2012 the Company entered into a privately negotiated accelerated share repurchase transaction (“ASR”) to repurchase $25,000 of its common stock. The Company advanced $25,000 on November 20, 2012 and received 65 shares, which represented 70% of the total number of shares to be repurchased calculated using the closing price on November 20, 2012. The agreement was settled in February 2013, and the Company received an additional 22 shares, resulting in a weighted-average price per share of $287.20 for the ASR.

During the three months ended March 31, 2013, the shares of common stock repurchased under authorized programs, including the ASR, was 186 for a total cost of $50,965. The cumulative shares repurchased under authorized programs as of March 31, 2013 are 3,910 for a total cost of $551,068. As of March 31, 2013, $149,219 was available to repurchase shares under the current repurchase authorization. The shares are being held in treasury stock until such time as they are reissued or retired at the discretion of the Board of Directors.

6. Stock-based Compensation

During the first quarter of 2013, the Company granted stock only stock appreciation rights (“SOSARs”) on 662 shares of its common stock to eligible employees, of which 191 include performance conditions. The grant date fair value of the SOSARs was $82.03 per share with an exercise price of $318.45 per share based on the closing price of common stock on the date of grant. The SOSARs (other than those subject to performance conditions) vest in two equal installments on the second and third anniversary of the grant date.

Total stock-based compensation expense was $15,655 ($9,534 net of tax) for the three months ended March 31, 2013, and was $20,760 ($12,659 net of tax) for the three months ended March 31, 2012. A portion of stock-based compensation totaling $268 and $520 for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, was recognized as capitalized development and is included in leasehold improvements, property and equipment in the consolidated balance sheet. During the three months ended March 31, 2013, 54 options or SOSARs were exercised, and 22 options or SOSARs were forfeited.

7. Earnings Per Share

Basic earnings per share is calculated by dividing income available to common shareholders by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during each period. Diluted earnings per share (“diluted EPS”) is calculated using income available to common shareholders divided by diluted weighted-average shares of common stock outstanding during each period. Potentially dilutive securities include common shares related to stock options, SOSARs and non-vested stock awards (collectively “stock awards”). For the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, 678 and 257 stock awards, respectively, were excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS because they were anti-dilutive. In addition, 509 and 416 stock awards for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, were excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS because they were subject to performance conditions.

The following table sets forth the computations of basic and diluted earnings per share:

8. Commitments and Contingencies

California ADA Cases

In 2006, Maurizio Antoninetti filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, primarily claiming that the height of the serving line wall in the Company’s restaurants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, as well as California disability laws. On December 6, 2006, Mr. Antoninetti filed an additional lawsuit in the same court making the same allegations on a class action basis, on behalf of himself and a purported class of disabled individuals, and a similar class action was filed by James Perkins in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 7, 2008.

5

Table of Contents

In the individual Antoninetti action, the district court entered a ruling in which it found that although the Company’s counter height violated the ADA, the Company provided the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and awarded attorney’s fees and minimal damages to the plaintiff. The Company and the plaintiff appealed the district court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on July 26, 2010, the appeals court entered a ruling finding that the Company violated the ADA and did not provide the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and remanded the case to the district court. On March 21, 2012, the district court reaffirmed its original award of minimal damages to the plaintiff and denied further injunctive relief. On July 18, 2012, the district court ordered a final judgment awarding the plaintiff a portion of the attorney’s fees and costs originally sought, and on December 26, 2012, the court of appeals awarded the plaintiff additional attorney’s fees and costs for the appellate portion of the case.

In the purported class action cases, on August 28, 2012, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. As a result, each plaintiff may only pursue claims against the Company in those cases on an individual basis. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on class certification, which was denied by the court on January 14, 2013.

The Company lowered the height of its serving line walls throughout California some time ago, which makes injunctive relief in these cases moot, and has the lower serving line walls in a significant majority of the Company’s restaurants outside of California as well. The Company will continue to vigorously defend the ongoing class action cases. Due to the possibility of further appeals and the uncertainties of litigation, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate any additional potential liability from those cases.

Notices of Inspection of Work Authorization Documents and Related Civil and Criminal Investigations

Following an inspection during 2010 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, of the work authorization documents of the Company’s restaurant employees in Minnesota, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of DHS, or ICE, issued to the Company a Notice of Suspect Documents identifying a large number of employees who, according to ICE and notwithstanding the Company’s review of work authorization documents for each employee at the time they were hired, appeared not to be authorized to work in the U.S. The Company approached each of the named employees to explain ICE’s determination and afforded each employee an opportunity to confirm the validity of their original work eligibility documents, or provide valid work eligibility documents. Employees who were unable to provide valid work eligibility documents were terminated in accordance with the law. In December 2010, the Company was also requested by DHS to provide the work authorization documents of restaurant employees in the District of Columbia and Virginia, and the Company provided the requested documents in January 2011, and subsequently received additional requests for work authorization documents covering a small number of individual restaurants as well. In April 2011, the Company also received notice from the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia that it is conducting an investigation into these matters through its criminal division. In April 2013 the civil division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia requested work authorization documents for all of the Company’s employees since 2007, plus employee lists and other documents concerning work authorization. The Company believes its practices with regard to the work authorization of its employees, including the review and retention of work authorization documents, are in compliance with applicable law. However, the termination of large numbers of employees in a short period of time does disrupt restaurant operations and results in a temporary increase in labor costs as new employees are trained.

In May 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified the Company that it is conducting a civil investigation of the Company’s compliance with employee work authorization verification requirements and its related disclosures and statements, and the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia advised the Company that its investigation has broadened to include a parallel criminal and civil investigation of the Company’s compliance with federal securities laws.

The Company intends to continue to fully cooperate in the government’s investigations. It is not possible at this time to determine whether the Company will incur any fines, penalties or further liabilities in connection with these matters.

Shareholder Derivative Actions

On July 12, 2012, Ralph B. Richey filed a shareholder derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the members of the Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with employee work authorization compliance matters. On September 21, 2012, Joanne Nelson filed a shareholder derivative action in the same court alleging that the members of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer breached their fiduciary duties, caused waste of corporate assets, and were unjustly enriched in connection with employee work authorization compliance matters, as well as in connection with the Company’s alleged failure to disclose material information about the Company’s business results and prospects, and in connection with compensation paid to some of the Company’s officers. On October 4, 2012, Francis Schmitz filed a shareholder derivative action in the same court, making allegations substantially the same as those in the Nelson complaint. Each of these actions purports to state a claim for damages on behalf of the Company, and is based on statements in the Company’s SEC filings and related public disclosures, as well as media reports and Company records, in part regarding the matters described above under “-Notices of Inspection of Work Authorization Documents and Related Civil and Criminal Investigations.” On January 17, 2013, these three shareholder derivative actions were consolidated by the court and will proceed as a single action. On March 20, 2013, an amended and consolidated complaint for the cases was filed by plaintiff Saleem Mohammed. The Company intends to defend the cases vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from these cases.

6

Table of Contents

Shareholder Class Actions

On August 16, 2012, City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters Retirement System 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 the Company’s common stock between February 1, 2012 and July 19, 2012. On August 17, 2012, Sonia Kim filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado that was otherwise identical to the City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters complaint. The complaints purport to state claims against the Company, each of its co-Chief Executive Officers and its Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules and regulations, based on the Company’s alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose material information about the Company’s business results and prospects. The complaints assert that those failures and related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the market price of the Company’s stock was artificially inflated during the claimed class period. The complaints seek damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. The Company intends 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

The Company is involved in various other claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s 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 the Company incurs greater liabilities than the Company currently anticipates, could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

7

Table of Contents

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements in this report, including projections of the number and type of restaurants we intend to open, potential changes in comparable restaurant sales, statements regarding possible menu price increases, projections of food cost trends and marketing spending, discussion of possible stock repurchases, and estimates of our effective tax rates, are forward-looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We use words such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “could”, “should”, “estimate”, “expect”, “intend”, “may”, “predict”, “project”, “target”, and similar terms and phrases, including references to assumptions, to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on information available to us as of the date any such statements are made, and we assume no obligation to update these forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the risk factors described in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as updated in Part II, Item 1.A of this report.

Overview

Chipotle operates fresh Mexican food restaurants serving burritos, tacos, burrito bowls (a burrito without the tortilla) and salads. We began with a simple philosophy: demonstrate that food served fast doesn’t have to be a traditional “fast-food” experience. We do this by avoiding a formulaic approach when creating our restaurant experience, looking to fine dining restaurants for inspiration. We use high-quality raw ingredients, classic cooking methods and distinctive interior design, and have friendly people to take care of each customer—features that are more frequently found in the world of fine dining. Our approach is also guided by our belief in an idea we call “Food With Integrity.” Our objective is to find the highest quality ingredients we can—ingredients that are grown or raised with respect for the environment, animals and people who grow or raise the food. A similarly focused people culture, with an emphasis on identifying and empowering top performing employees, enables us to develop future leaders from within.

2013 Highlights

Restaurant Development. As of March 31, 2013, we had 1,458 restaurants, of which 1,446 were located throughout the United States, five in Canada, six in London, England, and one in Paris, France. Our restaurants include one ShopHouse Southeast Asian Kitchen, our new concept serving Asian inspired cuisine. New restaurants have contributed substantially to our revenue growth. We opened 48 restaurants during the three months ended March 31, 2013. We expect to open 165 to 180 restaurants in 2013, including any new ShopHouse restaurants.

Sales Growth. Average restaurant sales were $2.105 million as of March 31, 2013. We define average restaurant sales as the average trailing 12-month sales for restaurants in operation for at least 12 full calendar months. Our comparable restaurant sales increased 1.0% for the first three months of 2013. Comparable restaurant sales represent the change in period-over-period sales for restaurants beginning in their 13th full month of operation. Comparable restaurant sales increases in the first three months of 2013 were driven primarily by an increase in customer visits and the impact of menu price increases in the Pacific region in March 2012. Comparable restaurant sales were negatively impacted in 2013 due to the first quarter of 2012 having two more days of sales than the first quarter of 2013 as a result of leap day as well as the Easter holiday falling in the first quarter of 2013 instead of the second quarter, as in 2012. Taking into account the loss of the benefit of menu price increases from previous years, our recent transaction trends, as well as ongoing consumer and economic uncertainty, we expect our full year comparable restaurant sales increases in 2013 to be flat or low single digit increases assuming we do not increase menu prices.

Food With Integrity. In all of our restaurants, we endeavor to serve only meats that were raised without the use of subtherapeutic antibiotics or added hormones, and in accordance with criteria we’ve established in an effort to improve sustainability and promote animal welfare. In addition, a portion of some of the produce items we serve is organically grown, or sourced locally when in season (by which we mean within 350 miles of our restaurant), and a portion of the beans we serve is organically grown and a portion is grown using conservation tillage methods that improve soil conditions, reduce erosion and help preserve the environment in which they are grown. The sour cream and cheese we buy is made with milk that comes from cows that are not given rBGH. Milk used to make much of our cheese and sour cream is sourced from dairies that provide an even higher standard of animal welfare by providing outdoor access for their cows. We will continue to search for quality ingredients that not only taste delicious, but also benefit local farmers or the environment, or otherwise benefit or improve the sustainability of our supply chain.

One of our primary goals is for all of our restaurants to continue serving meats that are raised to meet our standards, but we have and will continue to face challenges in doing so. Some of our restaurants served conventionally raised beef for periods during the first quarter of 2013 and some are continuing to serve conventionally raised beef, and more of our restaurants may periodically serve conventionally raised meats in the future due to additional supply constraints. When we become aware that one or more of our restaurants will serve conventionally raised meat, we clearly and specifically disclose this temporary change on signage in each affected restaurant, so that customers can avoid those meats if they choose to do so.

Our food costs increased as a percentage of revenue in the first quarter of 2013 as compared to the first quarter of 2012 as a result of inflationary pressures on many of our ingredients, particularly salsa ingredients and other produce, as well as dairy and chicken. This increase was partially offset by the impact of menu price increases in the Pacific region in March 2012, as well as relief in avocado prices. We expect that

8

Table of Contents

food cost inflation will continue in 2013 and that our food costs as a percentage of revenue will increase. If food inflation continues to pressure food costs, we may, after taking into account the general economic environment, consumer confidence, and our sales trends, raise menu prices later in 2013.

Stock Repurchases. In accordance with stock repurchases authorized by our Board of Directors we purchased stock with an aggregate total repurchase price of $51.0 million during the first quarter of 2013. As of March 31, 2013, $149.2 million was available to be repurchased under the current repurchase authorizations. We have entered into an agreement with a broker under SEC rule 10b5-1(c), authorizing the broker to make open market purchases of common stock from time to time, subject to market conditions. The existing repurchase agreement and the Board’s authorization of the repurchases may be modified, suspended, or discontinued at any time.

On November 20, 2012, we entered into a privately negotiated accelerated share repurchase transaction (“ASR”) to repurchase $25 million of our common stock. We advanced the $25 million upon commencement of the transaction and received 65,187 shares, which represented 70% of the total number of shares to be repurchased calculated using the closing price on the commencement date. The agreement was settled in February 2013, and we received an additional 21,860 shares, resulting in a weighted-average price per share of $287.20 for the ASR.

Restaurant Activity

The following table details restaurant unit data for the periods indicated.

Results of Operations

Our results of operations as a percentage of revenue and period-over-period variances are discussed in the following section. As our business grows and we open more restaurants and hire more employees, our aggregate restaurant operating costs increase.

Revenue

The significant factors contributing to our increase in revenue were new restaurant openings and comparable restaurant sales increases. Revenue from restaurants not in the comparable restaurant base contributed $80.8 million of the increase, of which $11.5 million was attributable to restaurants opened in 2013. Comparable restaurant sales increases contributed $5.6 million of the increase in revenue, primarily due to increases in customer visits, and the impact of menu price increases in the Pacific region in March 2012.

9

Table of Contents

Food, Beverage and Packaging Costs

Food, beverage and packaging costs increased as a percentage of revenue due to inflation on many of our food items, including salsa ingredients and other produce, as well as dairy and chicken. These increases were partially offset by the impact of menu price increases in the Pacific region in March 2012, as well as relief in avocado prices. We expect that food cost inflation will continue in 2013 and that our food costs as a percent of revenue will continue to increase.

Labor Costs

Labor costs as a percentage of revenue remained relatively consistent.

Occupancy Costs

Occupancy costs increased as a percentage of revenue primarily due to impact of two fewer days of sales in 2013 compared to 2012.

Other Operating Costs

Other operating costs include, among other items, marketing and promotional costs, bank and credit card fees, and restaurant utilities and maintenance costs. Other operating costs increased as a percentage of revenue due primarily to higher spend on marketing and promotion and other restaurant service costs. We expect to increase marketing and promotional spend during the remainder of 2013, resulting in greater other operating costs as a percentage of revenue for the remainder of 2013.

10

Table of Contents

General and Administrative Expenses

The decrease in general and administrative expenses primarily resulted from a decrease in non-cash stock-based compensation expense, due to the inclusion during the three months ended March 31, 2012 of additional expense of $5.6 million related to non-vested stock awards subject to performance conditions, as well as from a decrease of $2.9 million in the employer portion of taxes paid primarily from fewer stock award exercises and vesting during 2013 as compared to 2012. This decrease was partially offset by increased costs as we grew.

Depreciation and Amortization

The increase in depreciation and amortization in dollar terms was primarily due to restaurants opened in 2013 and 2012. Depreciation and amortization remained consistent as a percentage of revenue.

Provision for Income Taxes

We expect our 2013 estimated annual effective tax to be 38.5% compared to 39.3% for 2012. Congress extended certain tax credits in January 2013 that impacted the 2013 annual effective tax rate favorably by 1.1%. The favorable annual tax rate impact includes 0.6% related to the estimated federal tax credit benefit in 2012 and 0.5% related to the estimated federal tax credit benefit in 2013. These benefits were partially offset by a higher state tax rate and foreign losses. The 2012 estimated federal tax credits were recorded in the first quarter of 2013 benefitting the tax rate by 2.7% in the quarter.

Seasonality

Seasonal factors cause our profitability to fluctuate from quarter to quarter. Historically, our average daily restaurant sales and net income are lower in the first and fourth quarters due, in part, to the holiday season and because fewer people eat out during periods of inclement weather (the winter months) than during periods of mild or warm weather (the spring, summer and fall months). Other factors also have a seasonal effect on our results. For example, restaurants located near colleges and universities generally do more business during the academic year. The number of trading days can also affect our results. Overall, on an annual basis, changes in trading days do not have a significant impact on our results.

Our quarterly results are also affected by other factors such as the number of new restaurants opened in a quarter, timing of marketing and promotional spend and both planned and unanticipated events. New restaurants typically have lower margins following opening as a result of the expenses associated with opening new restaurants and their operating inefficiencies in the months immediately following opening. Accordingly, results for a particular quarter are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for any other quarter or for any year.

11

Table of Contents

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our primary liquidity and capital requirements are for new restaurant construction, working capital and general corporate needs. We have a cash and investment balance of $703.0 million that we expect to utilize, along with cash flow from operations, to provide capital to support the growth of our business (primarily through opening restaurants), to repurchase, as currently authorized, additional shares of our common stock subject to market conditions, to continue to maintain our existing restaurants and for general corporate purposes. We believe that cash from operations, together with our cash and investment balance, will be enough to meet ongoing capital expenditures, working capital requirements and other cash needs for the foreseeable future.

We haven’t required significant working capital because customers pay using cash or credit cards and because our operations do not require significant receivables, nor do they require significant inventories due, in part, to our use of various fresh ingredients. In addition, we generally have the right to pay for the purchase of food, beverage and supplies some time after the receipt of those items, generally within ten days, thereby reducing the need for incremental working capital to support growth.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of March 31, 2013 we had no off-balance sheet arrangements or obligations.

Critical Accounting Estimates

Critical accounting estimates are those that we believe are both significant and that require us to make difficult, subjective or complex judgments, often because we need to estimate the effect of inherently uncertain matters. We base our estimates and judgments on historical experiences and various other factors that we believe to be appropriate under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from these estimates, and we might obtain different estimates if we used different assumptions or conditions. We had no significant changes in our critical accounting estimates since our last annual report. Our critical accounting estimates are identified and described in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Changing Interest Rates

We’re exposed to interest rate risk through fluctuations of interest rates on our investments. Changes in interest rates affect the interest income we earn, and therefore impact our cash flows and results of operations. As of March 31, 2013, we had $484.6 million in investments and interest-bearing cash accounts, including insurance related restricted trust accounts classified in other assets, and $205.1 million accounts with an earnings credit we classify as interest income, which combined bear a weighted-average interest rate of 0.29%.

Commodity Price Risks

We are also exposed to commodity price risks. Many of the ingredients we use to prepare our food, as well as our packaging materials, are commodities or ingredients that are affected by the price of other commodities, exchange rates, foreign demand, weather, seasonality, production, availability and other factors outside our control. We work closely with our suppliers and use a mix of forward pricing protocols under which we agree with our supplier on fixed prices for deliveries at some time in the future, fixed pricing protocols under which we agree on a fixed price with our supplier for the duration of that protocol, and formula pricing protocols under which the prices we pay are based on a specified formula related to the prices of the goods, such as spot prices. However, a portion of the dollar value of goods purchased by us is effectively at spot prices. Generally our pricing protocols with suppliers can remain in effect for periods ranging from one to 18 months, depending on the outlook for prices of the particular ingredient. In several cases, we have minimum purchase obligations. We’ve tried to increase, where necessary, the number of suppliers for our ingredients, which we believe can help mitigate pricing volatility, and we follow industry news, trade issues, exchange rates, foreign demand, weather, crises and other world events that may affect our ingredient prices. Increases in ingredient prices could adversely affect our results if we choose not to increase menu prices at the same pace for competitive or other reasons.

Foreign Currency Exchange Risk

A portion of our operations consists of activities outside of the U.S. and we have currency risk on the transactions in other currencies and translation adjustments resulting from the conversion of our international financial results into the U.S. dollar. However, a substantial majority of our operations and investment activities are transacted in the U.S. and therefore our foreign currency risk is limited at this date.

We maintain disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in Exchange Act reports is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Co-Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

12

Table of Contents

As of March 31, 2013, we carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Co-Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures. Based on the foregoing, our Co-Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.

There were no changes during the three months ended March 31, 2013 in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect our internal control over financial reporting.

PART II

For information regarding legal proceedings, see Note 8 “Commitments and Contingencies” in our notes to condensed consolidated financial statements included in Item 1. “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

There have been no material changes in our risk factors since our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer

The table below reflects shares of common stock we repurchased during the first quarter of 2013.

None.

Not applicable.

13

Table of Contents

None.

The exhibits listed in the exhibit index following the signature page are filed or furnished as part of this report.

14

Table of Contents

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

Date: April 18, 2013

15

Table of Contents

Exhibit Index

16