Commitments, Contingencies and Uncertainties | 7. Commitments, Contingencies and Uncertainties Department of Defense Complaints In December 2018, the United States on behalf of the United States Department of Defense filed a complaint in Intervention against the Company (and two other defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York captioned United States ex rel. James Hannum v. YRC Freight, Inc.; Roadway Express, Inc.; and Yellow Transportation, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-0811(A). The complaint alleged that the Company violated the False Claims Act by overcharging the Department of Defense for freight carrier services by failing to comply with the contractual terms of freight contracts between the Department of Defense and the Company and related government procurement rules. The complaint also alleges claims for unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Under the False Claims Act, the complaint seeks treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts. The remaining common causes of action seek an undetermined amount for an alleged breach of contract or alternatively causes constituting unjust enrichment or a payment by mistake. The Company has moved to dismiss the case, and the court heard oral arguments on the motion on August 12, 2019. On July 17, 2020, the Magistrate Judge to whom the case had been referred issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the District Judge grant the Company’s motion to dismiss in part with respect to one claim and deny it in all other respects. On May 10, 2021, the District Court entered a Decision and Order adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and Decision and Order. On December 6, 2021, the District Court granted a sixty day stay of all proceedings to allow parties time to discuss a potential resolution in this action. On February 3, 2022, the United States filed a Status Report and Motion to Stay (the “Motion”) with the District Court to facilitate efforts to reach a settlement agreement. The Motion was granted on February 4, 2022, and stayed all proceedings another sixty days . A no fault admission settlement of all claims in the matter was finalized on March 9, 2022 wherein the Company agreed to pay a settlement amount of approximately $ 6.8 million comprising restitution and interest on the amount from December 13, 2021 to the United States and approximately $ 0.4 million in legal fees and expenses to the relator. On March 28, 2022 the U.S. District Court approved the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal thereby closing the case. Shareholder Derivative Complaint In February 2021, two putative shareholders filed an action derivatively and on behalf of the Company naming Douglas A. Carty, Raymond J. Bromark, William R. Davidson, Matthew A. Doheny, Robert L. Friedman, James E. Hoffman, Michael J. Kneeland, Patricia M. Nazemetz, James F. Winestock, Jamie G. Pierson, Darren D. Hawkins, James L. Welch and Stephanie D. Fisher individually as defendants and the Company as the nominal defendant. The case, captioned Bhandari, et al. v. Carty, et al., Case No. 2021-0090-SG, was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware. The complaint alleged that the Company was exposed to harm by the individual defendants’ purported conduct concerning its freight-billing practices as alleged in the Department of Defense complaint and a settled class action securities complaint. The complaint asserts that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched as a result of their purported conduct. Claims similar to those raised in Bhandari had been raised in two shareholder derivative cases that were previously disclosed by the Company and have been dismissed. The defendants moved to dismiss the action on April 19, 2021. On July 16, 2021, the putative shareholders moved for entry of an order dismissing the Bhandari action without prejudice. On July 19, 2021, the Court entered an order dismissing the action without prejudice. Other Legal Matters We are involved in litigation or proceedings that arise in ordinary business activities. When possible, we insure against these risks to the extent we deem prudent, but no assurance can be given that the nature or amount of such insurance will be sufficient to fully indemnify us against liabilities arising out of pending and future legal proceedings. Many of these insurance policies contain self-insured retentions in amounts we deem prudent. Based on our current assessment of information available as of the date of these consolidated financial statements, we believe that our consolidated financial statements include adequate provisions for estimated costs and losses that may be incurred within the litigation and proceedings to which we are a party. |