Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
On June 30, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") to the Company. The CID sought information and documents about the Company’s capacity from January 2010 to the date of the CID, including public statements and communications with third parties about capacity. In June 2015, the Company also received a letter from the Connecticut Attorney General requesting information about capacity. The Company is cooperating fully with the DOJ CID and the state inquiry.
Further, on July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to restrict capacity from 2009 to present. The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses. On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, which the Court denied on October 28, 2016. On December 20,
44
Table of Contents
2017, the Company reached an agreement to settle these cases with a proposed class of all persons who purchased domestic airline transportation services from July 1, 2011, to the date of the settlement. The Company agreed to pay $15 million and to provide certain cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in the settlement agreement. After notice was provided to the proposed settlement class and the Court held a fairness hearing, the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on May 9, 2019. On June 10, 2019, certain objectors filed notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which the Court dismissed on July 9, 2021, for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order approving the settlements was not a final appealable order. The case is continuing as to the remaining defendants. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.
On July 11, 2019, a complaint alleging violations of federal and state laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against Boeing and the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman. The complaint alleges that Boeing and the Company colluded to conceal defects with the Boeing 737 MAX ("MAX") aircraft in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO") and also asserts related state law claims based upon the same alleged facts. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes of customers who purchased tickets for air travel from either the Company or American Airlines between August 29, 2017, and March 13, 2019. The complaint generally seeks money damages, equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and other costs. On September 13, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and to strike certain class allegations. Boeing also moved to dismiss. On February 14, 2020, the trial court issued a ruling that granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the complaint. The trial court order, among other things: (i) dismissed without prejudice various state law claims that the plaintiffs abandoned in response to the motions, (ii) dismissed with prejudice the remaining state law claims, including fraud by concealment, fraud by misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation on the grounds that federal law preempts those claims, and (iii) found that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue one of the plaintiffs’ theories of RICO injury. The order denied the motion to dismiss with respect to two RICO claims premised upon a second theory of RICO injury and denied the motion to strike the class allegations at the pleadings stage. On September 3, 2021, the trial court issued an order under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) certifying four classes of persons associated with ticket purchases for flights during the period of August 29, 2017, through March 13, 2019, comprised of (i) those who purchased tickets (without being reimbursed) for flights on Southwest Airlines during the class period, except for those whose flights were solely on routes where, at the time of the ticket purchase(s), a MAX plane was not scheduled for use (or actually used) and had not previously been used, (ii) those who reimbursed a Southwest Airlines ticket purchaser and thus bore the economic burden for a Southwest Airlines ticket for a flight meeting the preceding criteria set forth in (i) above, (iii) those who purchased tickets (without being reimbursed) for flights on American Airlines during the class period, except for those whose flights were solely on routes where, at the time of ticket purchase(s), a MAX plane was not scheduled for use (or actually used) and had not previously been used, and (iv) those who reimbursed an American Airlines ticket purchaser and thus bore the economic burden for an American Airlines ticket for a flight meeting the preceding criteria set forth in (iii) above. On September 17, 2021, the Company filed a petition for permission immediately to appeal the class certification ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Boeing also filed such a petition. Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the petitions on September 27, 2021. On September 30, 2021, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Company (and Boeing) permission to appeal the class certification ruling. On December 22, 2021, in response to a motion to stay the trial court proceedings filed by the Company and Boeing, the Fifth Circuit stayed all proceedings, including the pursuit of any discovery, in the trial court pending disposition of the class certification appeal by the Fifth Circuit. The Company intends to strenuously pursue the appeal. On January 7, 2022, the Company and Boeing each filed briefs in support of the appeal. The plaintiffs have a deadline of March 9, 2022, to file response briefs. The Company further denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the complaint that were not originally dismissed. The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects.
On February 19, 2020, a complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas. A lead plaintiff has been appointed in the case, and an amended complaint was filed on July 2, 2020. The amended complaint seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between February 7, 2017, and January 29, 2020. The amended complaint asserts claims
45
Table of Contents
under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act and alleges that the Company made material misstatements to investors regarding the Company’s safety and maintenance practices and its compliance with federal regulations and requirements. The amended complaint generally seeks money damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and other costs. On August 17, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On October 1, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a reply on or about October 21, 2020, such that the motion is now fully briefed, although the parties have each supplemented their prior briefing with regard to more recent case holdings in other matters. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the amended complaint. The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.
On June 22, 2020, a derivative action for breach of fiduciary duty was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas naming the members of the Company's Board of Directors as defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant (the "Derivative Action"). The plaintiff alleges unspecified damage to Company’s reputation, goodwill, and standing in the community, as well as damage from exposure to civil and regulatory liability and defense costs. According to the lawsuit, these damages arise from the Company’s alleged failure to comply with safety and record maintenance regulations and false statements in public filings regarding the Company’s safety practices. The plaintiff alleges the Board, in the absence of good faith, exhibited reckless disregard for its duties of oversight. On October 7, 2020, the Court entered an order staying and administratively closing the Derivative Action. The plaintiff in the Derivative Action shall have the right to reopen the action following the resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss in the ongoing litigation brought under the federal securities laws or upon the occurrence of certain other conditions. The Board and Company deny all allegations of wrongdoing made in the Derivative Action.
On August 26, 2021, a complaint alleging breach of contract and seeking certification as a class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco. The complaint alleges that the Company breached its Contract of Carriage and other alleged agreements in connection with its use of the allegedly defective 737 MAX aircraft manufactured by The Boeing Company. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes of customers who provided valuable consideration, whether in money or other form (e.g., voucher, miles/points, etc.), in exchange for a ticket for air transportation with the Company, which transportation took place between August 29, 2017, and March 13, 2019. The complaint generally seeks money damages, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and other costs. On October 27, 2021, the Company filed a multi-faceted motion challenging the complaint, including seeking a stay or transfer of the case based upon prior pending litigation, dismissal of the Complaint based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim, and seeking to have the complaint’s class contentions stricken. That motion was fully briefed by both parties as of December 22, 2021, and is now awaiting determination by the court. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects.
The Company is from time to time subject to various legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited to, examinations by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Company’s management does not expect that the outcome in any of its currently ongoing legal proceedings or the outcome of any proposed adjustments presented to date by the Internal Revenue Service, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flow.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
46
Table of Contents
INFORMATION ABOUT OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
The following information regarding the Company’s executive officers is as of February 3, 2022.
Name Position Age
Gary C. Kelly Executive Chairman of the Board 66
Robert E. Jordan Chief Executive Officer 61
Michael G. Van de Ven President & Chief Operating Officer 60
Tammy Romo Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer 59
Linda B. Rutherford Executive Vice President People & Communications 55
Mark R. Shaw Executive Vice President & Chief Legal & Regulatory Officer 59
Andrew M. Watterson Executive Vice President & Chief Commercial Officer 55
Set forth below is a description of the background of each of the Company’s executive officers.
Gary C. Kelly has served as the Company's Executive Chairman of the Board since February 2022 and has served as the Company's Chairman of the Board since May 2008. Mr. Kelly also served as Chief Executive Officer from July 2004 to February 2022, President from July 2008 to January 2017, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer from June 2001 to July 2004, and Vice President Finance & Chief Financial Officer from 1989 to 2001. Mr. Kelly joined the Company in 1986 as its Controller.
Robert E. Jordan has served as the Company's Chief Executive Officer since February 2022 and has been a member of the Company's Board of Directors since February 2022. Mr. Jordan also served as Executive Vice President & Incoming Chief Executive Officer from June 2021 to February 2022, Executive Vice President Corporate Services from July 2017 to June 2021, Executive Vice President & Chief Commercial Officer from September 2011 to July 2017, Executive Vice President Strategy & Planning from May 2008 to September 2011, Executive Vice President Strategy & Technology from September 2006 to May 2008, Senior Vice President Enterprise Spend Management from August 2004 to September 2006, Vice President Technology from 2002 to 2004, Vice President Purchasing from 2001 to 2002, Controller from 1997 to 2001, Director Revenue Accounting from 1994 to 1997, and Manager Sales Accounting from 1990 to 1994. Mr. Jordan joined the Company in 1988 as a programmer.
Michael G. Van de Ven has served as the Company's President since September 2021 and as its Chief Operating Officer since May 2008. Mr. Van de Ven also served as Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer from May 2008 to January 2017, Chief of Operations from September 2006 to May 2008, Executive Vice President Aircraft Operations from November 2005 through August 2006, Senior Vice President Planning from August 2004 to November 2005, Vice President Financial Planning & Analysis from 2001 to 2004, Senior Director Financial Planning & Analysis from 2000 to 2001, and Director Financial Planning & Analysis from 1997 to 2000. Mr. Van de Ven joined the Company in 1993 as its Director Internal Audit.
Tammy Romo has served as the Company's Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer since July 2015. Ms. Romo also served as Senior Vice President Finance & Chief Financial Officer from September 2012 to July 2015, Senior Vice President of Planning from February 2010 to September 2012, Vice President of Financial Planning from September 2008 to February 2010, Vice President Controller from February 2006 to August 2008, Vice President Treasurer from September 2004 to February 2006, Senior Director of Investor Relations from March 2002 to September 2004, Director of Investor Relations from December 1994 to March 2002, Manager of Investor Relations from September 1994 to December 1994, and Manager of Financial Reporting from September 1991 to September 1994.
Linda B. Rutherford has served as the Company’s Executive Vice President People & Communications since June 2021. Ms. Rutherford also served as Senior Vice President & Chief Communications Officer from October 2017 to June 2021, Vice President & Chief Communications Officer from January 2016 to October 2017, Vice President Communications & Strategic Outreach from April 2007 to January 2016, Vice President Public Relations & Community Affairs from December 2005 to April 2007, Director Public Relations from May 2001 to December
47
Table of Contents
2005, Senior Manager Public Relations from February 1999 to May 2001, and Manager Public Relations from February 1997 to February 1999. Ms. Rutherford joined the Company in 1992 as a Public Relations Coordinator.
Mark R. Shaw has served as the Company's Executive Vice President & Chief Legal & Regulatory Officer since November 2018. Mr. Shaw also served as Executive Vice President, Chief Legal & Regulatory Officer, & Corporate Secretary from August 2018 to November 2018, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, & Corporate Secretary from July 2015 to August 2018, Vice President, General Counsel, & Corporate Secretary from February 2013 to July 2015, and as Associate General Counsel - Corporate & Transactions from February 2008 to February 2013. Mr. Shaw joined the Company in 2000 as an Attorney in the General Counsel Department.
Andrew M. Watterson has served as the Company's Executive Vice President & Chief Commercial Officer since January 2020. Mr. Watterson also served as Executive Vice President & Chief Revenue Officer from July 2017 to January 2020, Senior Vice President & Chief Revenue Officer from January 2017 to July 2017, Senior Vice President of Network & Revenue from January 2016 to January 2017, and as Vice President of Network Planning & Performance from October 2013 to January 2016.
48
Table of Contents
PART II