Item 3. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
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, unpaid overtime, 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. Discovery is ongoing in these matters, and defendants continue to mount a vigorous defense on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, including as to the threshold issue of employment classification. Both cases are scheduled for trial in September 2021; however, this date may be impacted or significantly delayed by the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on Court operations, including the scheduling of jury trials. We anticipate further legal rulings from the Court at or before trial that may substantially affect the scope of the claims asserted. As a result, we are unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that we may incur as a result of these claims.
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. Briefing on defendants’ motion was completed on June 18, 2020, and the Court heard oral argument on June 30, 2020. The Court has not yet issued a decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Also, on May 13, 2019, Adriana Jez filed a purported shareholder derivative action captioned Jez v. Jacobs, et al. , (“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. Defendants have not yet answered or moved against the operative complaint.
We believe these suits are without merit and we intend to defend the company vigorously against the allegations. 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.
32
Table of Contents
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.
33
Table of Contents
PART II
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.