Commitments and Contingencies Return of Capital In September 2018, we entered into accelerated share repurchase agreements (ASR agreements) with third-party financial institutions totaling $5.0 billion , effective October 1, 2018. We made a $5.0 billion upfront payment on October 2, 2018 to the financial institutions and received an initial delivery of shares, which approximates 80 percent of the total number of shares to be repurchased under the ASR agreements. Upon completion, the total shares repurchased will be based on the volume-weighted average share price during the term of the ASR agreements less an applicable discount. The financial institutions may be required to deliver additional shares or, under certain circumstances, we may be required to deliver shares or elect to make a cash payment to the financial institutions. Final settlement is expected to be completed as early as February 2019 and no later than March 2019. Refer to Note 18 , Subsequent Events, for additional information about our ASR agreements. Legal Proceedings On April 13, 2010, an organization named Council for Education and Research on Toxics (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company and certain other defendants who manufacture, package, distribute or sell brewed coffee. The lawsuit is Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corporation, et al .. On May 9, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an additional lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company and additional defendants who manufacture, package, distribute or sell packaged coffee. The lawsuit is Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Brad Barry LLC, et al .. Both cases have since been consolidated and now include nearly eighty defendants, which constitute the great majority of the coffee industry in California. Plaintiff alleges that the Company and the other defendants failed to provide warnings for their coffee products of exposure to the chemical acrylamide as required under California Health and Safety Code section 25249.5, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including providing warnings to consumers of coffee products, as well as civil penalties in the amount of the statutory maximum of two thousand five hundred dollars per day per violation of Proposition 65. The Plaintiff asserts that every consumed cup of coffee, absent a compliant warning, is equivalent to a violation under Proposition 65. The Company, as part of a joint defense group organized to defend against the lawsuit, disputes the claims of the Plaintiff. Acrylamide is not added to coffee, but is present in all coffee in small amounts (parts per billion) as a byproduct of the coffee bean roasting process. The Company has asserted multiple affirmative defenses. Trial of the first phase of the case commenced on September 8, 2014, and was limited to three affirmative defenses shared by all defendants. On September 1, 2015, the trial court issued a final ruling adverse to defendants on all Phase 1 defenses. Trial of the second phase of the case commenced in the fall of 2017. On May 7, 2018, the trial court issued a ruling adverse to defendants on the Phase 2 defense, the Company's last remaining defense to liability. On June 22, 2018 the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed a new regulation clarifying that cancer warnings are not required for coffee under Proposition 65. Defendants anticipate that the proposed regulation will be final by January 2019. The case was set to proceed to a third phase trial on damages, remedies and attorneys' fees on October 15, 2018. However, on October 12, 2018, the California Court of Appeal granted the defendants request for a stay of the Phase 3 trial. At this stage of the proceedings, Starbucks believes that the likelihood that the Company will ultimately incur a loss in connection with this litigation is reasonably possible rather than probable. Accordingly, no loss contingency was recorded for this matter. The outcome and the financial impact of the case to Starbucks, if any, cannot be predicted. Starbucks is party to various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including certain employment litigation cases that have been certified as class or collective actions, but, except as noted above, is not currently a party to any legal proceeding that management believes could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.