Legal Proceedings | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2014 |
Legal Proceedings [Abstract] | ' |
Legal Proceedings | ' |
9. Legal Proceedings |
Department of Justice Investigation and Related Litigation |
In 2010, Old Polar entered into an agreement with the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") to resolve issues relating to the previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning alleged manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and other rate components for air cargo services (the “DOJ Investigation”). |
As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust laws. The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief. |
In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising prior to 2004. |
The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs' motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011. There was substantial pretrial written discovery and document production, and a number of depositions were taken. A court hearing on whether or not to certify the case as a class action was held in October 2013 and oral arguments were held in November 2013. We are unable to reasonably predict the court's ruling or the ultimate outcome of the litigation. |
The Company, Old Polar and a number of other cargo carriers have also been named as defendants in civil class action suits in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada that are substantially similar to the class action suits in the United States. The plaintiffs in the British Columbia case have indicated they do not intend to pursue their lawsuit against the Company and Old Polar. We are unable to reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation in Ontario and Quebec. |
If the Company or Old Polar were to incur an unfavorable outcome in connection with one or more of the matters described above, such outcome is not expected to materially affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and/or cash flows. |
Brazilian Customs Claim |
Old Polar was cited for two alleged customs violations in Sao Paulo, Brazil, relating to shipments of goods dating back to 1999 and 2000. Each claim asserts that goods listed on the flight manifest of two separate Old Polar scheduled service flights were not on board the aircraft upon arrival and therefore were improperly brought into Brazil. The two claims, which also seek unpaid customs duties, taxes and penalties from the date of the alleged infraction, are approximately $8.7 million in aggregate based on March 31, 2014 exchange rates. |
In both cases, we believe that the amounts claimed are substantially overstated due to a calculation error when considering the type and amount of goods allegedly missing, among other things. Furthermore, we may seek appropriate indemnity from the shipper in each claim as may be feasible. In the pending claim for one of the cases, we have received an administrative decision dismissing the claim in its entirety, which remains subject to a mandatory appeal by the Brazil customs authorities. As required to defend such claims, we have made deposits pending resolution of these matters. The balances were $6.0 million as of March 31, 2014 and $5.7 million as of December 31, 2013, and are included in Deposits and other assets. |
We are currently defending these and other Brazilian customs claims and the ultimate disposition of these claims, either individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. |
Trademark Matters |
Since 2005, we have been involved in ongoing litigation in Europe against Atlas Transport, an unrelated and unaffiliated entity, over the use of the name “Atlas”. Following application by us to register the mark “ATLAS AIR” in the European Union (“EU”), opposition from Atlas Transport and follow-up filings by us, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”), which handles trademark matters in the EU, declared Atlas Transport's own trademark “ATLAS” partially invalid because of the prior existence of our Benelux trademark registration. In 2008, OHIM's First Board of Appeal upheld the lower panel's decision, and Atlas Transport appealed that decision to the EU General Court (formally the Court of First Instance), which upheld the court's decision on May 18, 2011. Atlas Transport appealed that ruling to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”). On March 9, 2012, the ECJ denied the appeal, bringing to an end that aspect of the OHIM proceedings. The Company's request for OHIM to resume another aspect of the proceedings remains pending. |
In 2007, Atlas Transport also filed a lawsuit in the Netherlands challenging the validity of our Benelux trademark. In 2009, following completion of its proceedings, the court issued a judgment in favor of us. Atlas Transport appealed that decision to the Dutch Court of Appeal, but the judgment took effect immediately upon entry. An appellate hearing was held on March 20, 2014, and the court's decision is pending. |
In 2009, Atlas Transport instituted a trademark infringement lawsuit against us in the regional court in Hamburg, Germany. The amended complaint alleges that Atlas Air has been unlawfully using Atlas Transport's trademark in Germany without permission and should be required to render information on the scope of use and pay compensation. In a supplementary motion, Atlas Transport asserts a cease and desist claim against Atlas Air, to be considered if the court denies the claim for compensation. On May 31, 2011, the court dismissed the case and Atlas Transport filed an appeal, which remains pending. |
We believe that the ultimate disposition of these claims, either individually or in the aggregate, will not materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. |
Other |
We have certain other contingencies incident to the ordinary course of business. Management believes that the ultimate disposition of such other contingencies is not expected to materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. |