2 unchanged sentences
Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") to the Company.
−Removed: The CID seeks 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.
+Added: 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.
6 unchanged sentences
They seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses.
−Removed: On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this motion.
+Added: On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, which the Court denied on October 28, 2016.
On December 20, 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.
−Removed: The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 3, 2018, and the plaintiffs provided notice to the proposed settlement class.
−Removed: The Court held a fairness hearing on March 22, 2019, and it issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on May 9, 2019.
−Removed: On June 10, 2019, three sets of objectors filed notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
−Removed: Two sets of the objectors dismissed their appeals.
−Removed: On July 9, 2021, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal of the remaining objectors for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order approving the settlements was not a final appealable order.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
9 unchanged sentences
(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.
−Removed: 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
−Removed: Discovery is ongoing, class certification briefing has been completed, and a class certification hearing was held before the court on April 26, 2021.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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
+Added: Table of Conten ts
+Added: 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.
1 unchanged sentence
Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the petitions on September 27, 2021.
−Removed: On or about October 6, 2021, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Company (and Boeing) permission to appeal the class certification ruling.
−Removed: A briefing schedule has yet to be set by the Fifth Circuit.
−Removed: The Company (and Boeing) have filed motions to stay all trial court proceedings pending an appeal ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
−Removed: The Company intends to strenuously pursue that appeal.
−Removed: The Company further denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the complaint that were not dismissed.
+Added: On September 30, 2021, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Company (and Boeing) permission to appeal the class certification ruling.
+Added: 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.
+Added: On January 7, 2022, the Company and Boeing each filed briefs in support of the appeal, and the briefing of both sides on the merits of the appeal was recently completed.
+Added: The Company intends to strenuously pursue the appeal, including, without limitation, through any oral argument that might be set by the Fifth Circuit.
+Added: 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.
9 unchanged sentences
The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: 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.
1 unchanged sentence
The plaintiff alleges the Board, in the absence of good faith, exhibited reckless disregard for its duties of oversight.
−Removed: The lawsuit is in its early stages, and the Board and Company deny all allegations of wrongdoing.
+Added: On October 7, 2020, the Court entered an order staying and administratively closing the Derivative Action.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: The complaint alleges that the Company breached its Contract of Carriage and other alleged agreements in connection with Southwest’s use of the allegedly defective 737 MAX aircraft manufactured by The Boeing Company.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: The complaint generally seeks money damages, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and other costs.
−Removed: The Company’s deadline to respond to
−Removed: the Complaint is October 27, 2021.
+Added: The complaint generally seeks money
+Added: Table of Conten ts
+Added: damages, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and other costs.
+Added: On October 27, 2021, the Company filed a multi-faceted motion challenging 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.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: 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 IRS.
−Removed: 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 IRS, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flow.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Table of Conten ts
+Added: There have been no material changes to the factors disclosed in Item 1A.
+Added: Risk Factors in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.