25 unchanged sentences
Alaska Airlines, Inc.
−Removed: and Horizon Industries, Inc.
−Removed: , an appeal from an order by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granting summary judgment in defendants’ favor on substantially the same claims at issue in this action.
+Added: and Horizon Industries, Inc., an appeal from an order by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granting summary judgment in defendants’ favor on substantially the same claims at issue in this action.
The Ninth Circuit issued its order in
Clarkson on February 1, 2023, reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanding the Clarkson case to the District Court with instructions to consider the “pay during leave” issue in the first instance.
−Removed: On March 22, 2024, the parties in the Company's case submitted a proposed case schedule through trial.
−Removed: The Court subsequently set a trial date of July 21, 2025.
−Removed: The Company has received the military pay and service records and is filing a motion for decertification with a hearing set for January 30, 2025.
−Removed: The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing, believes the plaintiff’s positions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects.
+Added: The Com pany has received the military pay and service records.
+Added: On October 29, 2024, the Company filed a motion to decertify the class, which was then fully briefed and set for hearing.
+Added: On February 13, 2025, the parties filed a notice of settlement advising the Court that they reached a settlement in principle, and the parties made a stipulated request for the Court to vacate the case schedule, including the hearing on the Company's decertification motion, and to set a deadline of June 19, 2025, for the filing of either a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement or a status update about the timing of the remaining steps in the settlement process.
+Added: The Court granted the stipulation on February 14, 2025.
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 (the “Board”) as defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant (the “Derivative Action”).
14 unchanged sentences
On March 23, 2023, the parties jointly notified the Court of the dismissal of the Sherman Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
−Removed: The case remains stayed, and there has been no effort either to lift the stay or to further pursue the asserted claims following the dismissal of the Sherman Complaint.
−Removed: The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing, believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects.
−Removed: Two complaints alleging violations of federal securities laws and seeking certification as a class action have been filed (on January 10, 2023, and March 13, 2023, respectively) against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston.
+Added: Following more recent communications by the parties regarding the status of the stay, the Court directed the parties to file a joint status report, which was filed on February 24, 2025, with the Company renewing its request that the case be dismissed for lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction in light of the Fifth Circuit’s decision regarding the Sherman Complaint, which the plaintiffs opposed.
+Added: On March 11, 2025, the Court heard argument of the parties’ respective positions on the Company’s request for dismissal for lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
+Added: The Court ruled from the bench that the motion to dismiss was granted in favor of the Company and stated that an opinion would be forthcoming in the following weeks formalizing that ruling.
+Added: No opinion has yet been issued, and the case remains stayed pending that dismissal opinion.
+Added: There has been no indication as to whether the plaintiffs might seek to appeal that ruling.
+Added: In the event of any appeal, the Company continues to deny all allegations of wrongdoing, believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit, believes the trial court’s ruling dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is correct, and intends to vigorously defend itself against any appeal.
+Added: Two complaints alleging violations of federal securities laws and seeking certification as a class action were filed (on January 10, 2023, and March 13, 2023, respectively) against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston.
The complaints seek damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between June 13, 2020, and December 31, 2022.
2 unchanged sentences
The deadline in the first of these two cases to file a motion seeking appointment of lead plaintiff was March 13, 2023;
−Removed: four separate motions were filed, and three of the parties seeking appointment have continued to contest the issue.
−Removed: On July 17, 2023, the Court signed an order
−Removed: consolidating the two federal securities cases into the first-filed suit and also appointed plaintiff Michael Berry as lead plaintiff in the consolidated case, with his counsel of record to serve as lead counsel and liaison counsel.
+Added: four separate motions were filed, and three of the parties seeking appointment contested the issue.
+Added: On July 17, 2023, the Court signed an order consolidating the two federal securities cases into the first-filed suit and also appointed plaintiff Michael Berry as lead plaintiff in the consolidated case, with his counsel of record to serve as lead counsel and liaison counsel.
On September 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that expanded the class period to include persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 4, 2020, and March 14, 2023, while continuing to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act based on alleged misstatements regarding the Company's internal technology and alleged vulnerability to large-scale flight disruptions.
2 unchanged sentences
The Company and the individual defendants filed a reply brief on February 23, 2024.
−Removed: The motion to dismiss remains pending for decision.
+Added: On December 5, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied the motion to dismiss on the basis that "the issues are better suited for a summary judgment motion after the parties have had the opportunity to engage in discovery." On December 21, 2024, the Company moved for reconsideration of the December 5, 2024, order and, in the alternative, for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal.
+Added: The plaintiffs opposed both requests for relief.
+Added: On April 3, 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas conducted a hearing on the Company’s motion for reconsideration and requested the parties to confer and submit an agreed post-hearing briefing schedule in order for the Court to evaluate and determine the sufficiency of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint, believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects.
6 unchanged sentences
On June 18, 2024, a fourth shareholder derivative suit was filed in the 101st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, asserting substantially similar claims as in the first two state court derivative suits.
−Removed: On June 26, 2024, a fifth shareholder derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting substantially similar claims as in the first federal derivative suit.
+Added: On June 26, 2024, a fifth
+Added: shareholder derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting substantially similar claims as in the first federal derivative suit.
On July 18, 2024, a sixth shareholder derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting substantially similar claims as in the first federal derivative suit (together with the previous demand letters and shareholder derivative suits, the “Derivative Actions and Demands”).
5 unchanged sentences
On April 26, 2024, the Company filed a third motion to extend the stay of the federal derivative case until at least June 25, 2024.
−Removed: On July 2, 2024, the Company filed a
−Removed: fourth motion to extend the stay of the federal derivative case until at least July 25, 2024.
+Added: On July 2, 2024, the Company filed a fourth motion to extend the stay of the federal derivative case until at least July 25, 2024.
On July 27, 2024, the Company filed an additional motion to further extend the stay until September 23, 2024.
10 unchanged sentences
The Company and its counsel intend to take steps on behalf of the Company to implement the resolution of the Special Litigation Committee, including making appropriate motions in accordance with applicable Texas law governing derivative demands and litigation procedure.
−Removed: Based on the Company's wide-scale operational disruption, which led to the cancelation of a significant number of flights between December 21 and December 29, 2022, the Company has been subject to inquiries and investigations by governmental agencies (including with respect to a December 2023 settlement with the Department of Transportation) and could be subject to fines and/or penalties resulting from those inquiries and investigations, as well as litigation from Customers and Shareholders.
−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 Internal Revenue Service.
−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 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: On December 26, 2024, the Board received a seventh demand letter, and on January 31, 2025, received an eighth demand letter, each containing allegations substantially similar to those presented in certain of the prior Derivative Actions and Demands, which will be addressed consistent with applicable Texas law governing such demands.
+Added: On April 1, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or stay the consolidated state court derivative actions based on the forum selection clause in the Company’s bylaws and the pendency of the related federal derivative cases.
+Added: Plaintiffs have not yet filed a response.
+Added: Based on the Company's wide-scale operational disruption, which led to the cancelation of a significant number of flights between December 21 and December 29, 2022, the Company has been subject to inquiries and investigations by governmental agencies (including with respect to a December 2023 settlement with the DOT) and could be subject to fines and/or penalties resulting from those inquiries and investigations, as well as litigation from Customers and Shareholders.
+Added: On January 28, 2025, two participants in the Company’s retirement plans commenced a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company, the Board, and certain of the Company’s officers.
+Added: Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of participants and beneficiaries in the Southwest Airlines Co.
+Added: Retirement Savings Plan, the Southwest Airlines Co.
+Added: 401(k) Plan, and the Southwest Airlines Co.
+Added: ProfitSharing Plan (collectively, the “Plan”) who invested in the Harbor Capital Appreciation Fund from January 28, 2019 “through the date of judgment.” The complaint asserts that defendants mismanaged Plan assets and failed to monitor the Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by, among other things, failing to remove the Harbor Fund as an investment option.
+Added: The complaint seeks various forms of declaratory and monetary relief as well as attorneys’ fees, interest and other costs.
+Added: The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, believe the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against these claims.
+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 and state and local income tax authorities.
+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 and state and local income tax authorities, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flow.
Nevertheless, an adverse outcome for any of these matters could be material.
2 unchanged sentences
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.