Legal and Regulatory Matters | Legal and Regulatory Matters We are involved, and will continue to be involved, in numerous proceedings arising out of the conduct of our business. These proceedings may include claims for property damage or personal injury incurred in connection with the transportation of freight, claims regarding anti-competitive practices, and employment-related claims, including claims involving asserted breaches of employee restrictive covenants. These matters also include numerous putative class action, multi-plaintiff and individual lawsuits, and administrative proceedings involving claims that our owner-operators or contract carriers should be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors (“misclassification claims”). These lawsuits and proceedings may seek substantial monetary damages (including claims for unpaid wages, overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, unreimbursed business expenses, penalties and other items), injunctive relief, or both. We establish accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. We review and adjust accruals for loss contingencies quarterly and as additional information becomes available. If a loss is not both probable and reasonably estimable, or if an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued, we assess whether there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional loss, may have been incurred. If there is a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional loss, may have been incurred, we disclose the estimate of the possible loss or range of loss if it is material and an estimate can be made, or disclose that such an estimate cannot be made. The determination as to whether a loss can reasonably be considered to be possible or probable is based on our assessment, together with legal counsel, regarding the ultimate outcome of the matter. We believe that we have adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of any matters to which we are presently a party will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. However, the results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Legal costs incurred related to these matters are expensed as incurred. We carry liability and excess umbrella insurance policies that we deem sufficient to cover potential legal claims arising in the normal course of conducting our operations as a transportation company. The liability and excess umbrella insurance policies generally do not cover the misclassification claims described in this note. In the event we are required to satisfy a legal claim outside the scope of the coverage provided by insurance, our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be negatively impacted. Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims Certain of our intermodal drayage subsidiaries are defendants in class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers in California who contracted with these subsidiaries. In these cases, the contract carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. In two related cases pending in Federal District Court in Los Angeles , Alvarez v. XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC and Arrellano v. XPO Port Services, Inc. , the Court has certified classes beginning in April 2016 and March 2013, respectively. Plaintiffs allege that defendants exercised an impermissible degree of control over plaintiffs’ operations through the terms of the parties’ contracts and defendants’ policies, including enforcement of requirements imposed on motor carriers by state and federal law. The particular claims asserted vary from case to case but generally include claims that, should the contract carriers be determined to be employees, they would be entitled to reimbursement for unpaid wages and/or minimum wage, unpaid wages for missed meal and rest periods, reimbursement of certain of the contract carriers’ business expenses (including fuel and insurance related costs), Labor Code penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, and attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing the action. Defendants mounted a vigorous defense on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, including as to whether the plaintiffs met the applicable test for the threshold issue of employment classification. Trial in both cases was scheduled to begin September 7, 2021. In August 2021, the parties held a mediation at which a tentative settlement was reached in both actions. Subject to the Court’s approval, we have agreed to pay the plaintiff class in the Alvarez case a total of $20 million, which includes all attorneys’ fees and other costs. We have agreed to pay the plaintiff class in the Arrellano case a total of $9.5 million, which includes all attorneys’ fees and other costs. We accrued the full amount of both settlements in the third quarter of 2021. Under the terms of both settlement agreements, we do not have to reclassify our contractors as employees and the plaintiff classes have agreed to release us from all liability from the inception of each respective class period through December 31, 2021. All parties involved have agreed to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, and the settlement agreements do not contain any admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlements on October 8, 2021, and a final approval hearing is scheduled for January 10, 2022. Shareholder Litigation On December 14, 2018, a putative class action captioned Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al. , was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against us and some of our current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on alleged material misstatements and omissions in our public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 3, 2019, lead plaintiffs Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund (together, the “Pension Funds”) filed a consolidated class action complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on August 2, 2019. On November 4, 2019, the Court dismissed the consolidated class action complaint without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint. The Pension Funds, on January 3, 2020, filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint against us and a current executive. Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended consolidated class action complaint on March 3, 2020. On March 19, 2021, the Court dismissed the first amended consolidated class action complaint with prejudice and closed the case. On April 29, 2021, the Pension Funds filed a notice of appeal, and the appellate process is ongoing. Also, on May 13, 2019, Adriana Jez filed a purported shareholder derivative action captioned Jez v. Jacobs, et al. , (the “Jez complaint”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the Exchange Act against some of our current and former directors and officers, with the company as a nominal defendant. The Jez complaint was later consolidated with similar derivative complaints filed by purported shareholders Erin Candler and Kevin Rose under the caption In re XPO Logistics, Inc. Derivative Litigation. On December 12, 2019, the Court ordered plaintiffs to designate an operative complaint or file an amended complaint within 45 days. On January 27, 2020, plaintiffs designated the Jez complaint as the operative complaint in the consolidated cases. Defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint on February 26, 2020. Rather than file a brief in opposition, on March 27, 2020, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a further amended complaint and to stay briefing on defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion on July 6, 2020. On April 14, 2021, the Court issued an order staying proceedings pending resolution of an appeal in the Labul action. Plaintiffs stipulated that they will dismiss the shareholder derivative action with prejudice if the Labul dismissal is affirmed on appeal. We believe these suits are without merit and we intend to defend the company vigorously. We are unable at this time to determine the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that we may incur as a result of these matters. Insurance Contribution Litigation In April 2012, Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company sued eighteen insurance companies in a case captioned Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co. v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co., et al., Multnomah County Circuit Court (Case No. 1204-04552). Allianz sought contribution on environmental and product liability claims that Allianz agreed to defend and indemnify on behalf of its insured, Daimler Trucks North America (“DTNA”). Defendants had insured Freightliner’s assets, which DTNA acquired in 1981. Con-way, Freightliner’s former parent company, intervened. We acquired Con-way in 2015. Con-way and Freightliner had self-insured under fronting agreements with defendant insurers ACE, Westport, and General. Under those agreements, Con-way agreed to indemnify the fronting carriers for damages assessed under the fronting policies. After a seven-week jury trial in 2014, the jury found that Con-way and the fronting insurers never intended that the insurers defend or indemnify any claims against Freightliner. In June 2015, Allianz appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals. In May 2019, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the jury verdict. In September 2019, Allianz appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. In March 2021, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict, holding that it was an error to allow the jury to decide how the parties intended the fronting policies to operate, and also holding that the trial court improperly instructed the jury concerning one of the pollution exclusions at issue. In July of 2021, the matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision. There is no date yet set for the |