Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Contingencies	Note 15. Contingencies The Company is involved in certain claims and pending litigation primarily arising in the normal course of business. The majority of these claims relate to workers compensation, auto collision and liability, and physical damage and cargo damage. The Company expenses legal fees as incurred and accrues for the uninsured portion of contingent losses from these and other pending claims when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Based on the knowledge of the facts and, in certain cases, advice of outside counsel, management believes the resolution of claims and pending litigation, taking into account existing reserves, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future as the litigation and events related thereto unfold. For certain cases described below, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals and/or (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. *2004 owner-operator class action litigation* On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CV07-0472. The putative class originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with us under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place for one year. The putative class is alleging that we should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff’s petition for class certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision reversing the trial court’s denial of class certification and remanding the case back to the trial court. On November 14, 2008, we filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted our petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to reverse the trial court’s original denial of class certification and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further evaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles driven. On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the class to include employees. Upon certification, we filed a motion to compel arbitration as well as filing numerous motions in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class representative, and because the named owner-operator class representative only contracted with us for a three month period under a one year contract that no longer exists. In addition to these trial court motions, we also filed a petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court. On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and we filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals. During the month of April 2012, the court issued the following rulings with respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift’s motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift’s request to decertify the class; (3) granted Swift’s motion that there is no breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift’s motion to limit class size based on statute of limitations. We intend to continue to pursue all available appellate relief supported by the record, which we believe demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and, further, that the claims raised have no merit. We retain all of our defenses against liability and damages. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time. *Driving academy class action litigation* On March 11, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf, and Francis Wolf on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Michael Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf and Francis Wolf v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-02145-STA-dkv, or the Ham Complaint. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Western Section of Tennessee Western Division. The putative class involves former students of our Tennessee driving academy who are seeking relief against us for the suspension of their Commercial Driver Licenses, or CDLs, and any CDL retesting that may be required of the former students by the relevant state department of motor vehicles. The allegations arise from the Tennessee Department of Safety, or TDOS, having released a general statement questioning the validity of CDLs issued by the State of Tennessee in connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in the State of Tennessee. We have filed an answer to the Ham Complaint. We have also filed a cross claim against the Commissioner of the TDOS, or the Commissioner, for a judicial declaration and judgment that we did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a grant of injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by us and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such publications. The Commissioner’s motion to dismiss our cross claim has been dismissed by the court. On or about April 23, 2009, two class action lawsuits were filed against us in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively: Michael Pascarella, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Sharon A. Harrington, Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 09-1921(JBS), in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, or the Pascarella Complaint; and Shawn McAlarnen et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Janet Dolan, Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing of The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 09-1737 (E.D. Pa.), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or the McAlarnen Complaint. Both putative class action complaints involve former students of our Tennessee driving academy who are seeking relief against us, the TDOS, and the state motor vehicle agencies for the threatened suspension of their CDLs and any CDL retesting that may be required of the former students by the relevant state department of motor vehicles. The potential suspension and CDL re-testing was initiated by certain states in response to the general statement by the TDOS questioning the validity of CDL licenses the State of Tennessee issued in connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in Tennessee. The Pascarella Complaint and the McAlarnen Complaint are both based upon substantially the same facts and circumstances as alleged in the Ham Complaint. The only notable difference among the three complaints is that both the Pascarella and McAlarnen Complaints name the local motor vehicles agency and the TDOS as defendants, whereas the Ham Complaint does not. We deny the allegations of any alleged wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend our position. The McAlarnen Complaint has been dismissed without prejudice because the McAlarnen plaintiff has elected to pursue the Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for damages. We have filed an answer to the Pascarella Complaint. We have also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner for a judicial declaration and judgment that we did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request for injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by us and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such publications. The Commissioner’s motion to dismiss our cross claim has been dismissed by the court. On May 29, 2009, we were served with two additional class action complaints involving the same alleged facts as set forth in the Ham Complaint and the Pascarella Complaint. The two matters are Gerald L. Lott and Francisco Armenta on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. and David Mitchell the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 2:09-cv-02287, filed on May 7, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, or the Lott Complaint; and Marylene Broadnax on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-6486-7, filed on May 22, 2009 in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, State of Georgia, or the Broadnax Complaint. While the Ham Complaint, the Pascarella Complaint, and the Lott Complaint all were filed in federal district courts, the Broadnax Complaint was filed in state court. As with all of these related complaints, we have filed an answer to the Lott Complaint and the Broadnax Complaint. We have also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner for a judicial declaration and judgment that we did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request for injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by us and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such publications. The Commissioner’s motion to dismiss our cross claim has been dismissed by the court. The portion of the Lott complaint against the Commissioner has been dismissed as a result of a settlement agreement reached between the approximately 138 Lott class members and the Commissioner granting the class members 90 days to retake the test for their CDL. The Pascarella Complaint, the Lott Complaint, and the Broadnax Complaint are consolidated with the Ham Complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and discovery is ongoing. On July 1, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Western division entered an order of court granting class certification of the consolidated matters. We believe that the court committed reversible error in granting class certification and on July 15, 2011 we filed a motion for reconsideration of the class certification determination. In November 2011 and February 2012, we engaged in voluntary mediation in an attempt to resolve the matter and mitigate costs and risks of ongoing litigation. On June 14, 2012, the parties submitted to the court a petition for approval of a settlement agreement in resolution of the entire matter. Subject to preliminary and final approval of the settlement by the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Swift has agreed to make certain payments to qualifying class members on a claims made basis which will be within a dollar range of $2 million to $2.5 million and Swift will also agree to relinquish any legal claims to amounts owed by class members for unpaid academy tuition. The cost of settlement to Swift, including cash payments, related costs and charge offs, is not expected to result in any additional material charges or financial impact to the Company. Although Swift will relinquish its legal rights to amounts owed to it by class members for unpaid academy tuition, such amounts were fully reserved for in prior periods in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and thus no additional charges will be recorded for the relinquishment of such unpaid tuition receivables in connection with the settlement. *Owner-operator misclassification class action litigation* On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against Swift Transportation and IEL: John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 09-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Sheer Complaint. The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that we misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, and various New York and California state laws and that such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs, approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have joined this lawsuit. Upon our motion, the matter has been transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court in Arizona. On May 10, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the potential class members. On June 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30, 2010, the District Court granted Swift’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. The court further denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and motion for conditional class certification. The Court also denied plaintiff’s request to arbitrate the matter as a class. The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking that the District Court’s order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the court denied the plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus and plaintiff’s filed another request for interlocutory appeal. On December 9, 2011, the court permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with their interlocutory appeal. We intend to vigorously defend against any arbitration proceedings. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time. *California wage, meal and rest employee class action* On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the Burnell Complaint. On June 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the central District of California, Case No. EDCV10-00809-VAP. The putative class includes drivers who worked for us during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that we failed to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment. The Burnell Complaint is currently subject to a stay of proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case unrelated to Swift, Brinker v Hohnbaum, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court. On April 5, 2012, we were served with an additional class action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in the Burnell Complaint. This new class action is James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernadino, or the Rudsell Complaint. We intend to vigorously defend certification of the class in both matters as well as the merits of these matters should the classes be certified. The final disposition of both cases and the impact of such final dispositions of these cases cannot be determined at this time. *California owner-operator and employee driver class action* On July 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael Sanders against Swift Transportation and IEL: Michael Sanders individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Case No. 10523440 in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, or the Sanders Complaint. The putative class involves both owner-operators and driver employees alleging differing claims against Swift and IEL. Many of the claims alleged by both the putative class of owner-operators and the putative class of employee drivers overlap the same claims as alleged in the Sheer Complaint with respect to owner-operators and the Burnell Complaint as it relates to employee drivers. As alleged in the Sheer Complaint, the putative class includes owner-operators of Swift during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that we misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of FLSA and various California state laws and that such owner-operators should be considered employees. As also alleged in the Sheer Complaint, the owner-operator portion of the Sanders Complaint also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL. As alleged in the Burnell Complaint, the putative class in the Sanders Complaint includes drivers who worked for us during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that we failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate wage statements upon separation from employment, and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment. The Sanders Complaint also raises two issues with respect to the owner-operators and two issues with respect to drivers that were not also alleged as part of either the Sheer Complaint or the Burnell Complaint. These separate owner-operator claims allege that we failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to properly compensate for waiting times. The separate employee driver claims allege that we failed to reimburse business expenses and coerced driver employees to patronize the employer. The Sanders Complaint seeks to create two classes, one which is mostly (but not entirely) encompassed by the Sheer Complaint and another which is mostly (but not entirely) encompassed by the Burnell Complaint. Upon our motion, the Sanders Complaint has been transferred from the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 17, 2012, the court entered an order dismissing plaintiff’s case and granting Swift’s motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the January 17, 2012 order. *Environmental notice* On April 17, 2009, we received a notice from the Lower Willamette Group, or LWG, advising that there are a total of 250 potentially responsible parties, or PRPs, with respect to alleged environmental contamination of the Lower Willamette River in Portland, Oregon designated as the Portland Harbor Superfund site, or the Site, and that as a previous landowner at the Site we have been asked to join a group of 60 PRPs and proportionately contribute to (i) reimbursement of funds expended by LWG to investigate environmental contamination at the Site and (ii) remediation costs of the same, rather than be exposed to potential litigation. Although we do not believe we contributed any contaminants to the Site, we were at one time the owner of property at the Site and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act imposes a standard of strict liability on property owners with respect to environmental claims. Notwithstanding this standard of strict liability, we believe our potential proportionate exposure to be minimal and not material. No formal complaint has been filed in this matter. Our pollution liability insurer has been notified of this potential claim. We do not believe the outcome of this matter is likely to have a material adverse effect on us. However, the final disposition of this matter and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time. *California and Oregon minimum wage class action* On July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, or the Montalvo Complaint. The Montalvo Complaint was removed to federal court on August 15, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-01827-L. Upon petition by plaintiffs, the matter was remanded to state court and we filed an appeal to this remand. On July 11, 2011 a class action lawsuit was filed by Glen Ridderbush on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Ridderbush et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona LLC and Swift Transportation Services, LLC in the Circuit Court for the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, or the Ridderbush Complaint. The Ridderbush Complaint was removed to federal court on August 24, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-01028. Both putative classes include employees alleging that candidates for employment within the four year statutory period in California and within the three year statutory period in Oregon, were not paid the state mandated minimum wage during their orientation phase. On July 17, 2012, we engaged in a voluntary mediation session with the parties involved in the Ridderbush Complaint in an attempt to resolve the matter in order to avoid litigation and mitigate legal expense. The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the case, and we retain all of our defenses against liability and damages pending a determination of class certification. We intend to vigorously defend against certification of the class as well as the merits of this matter should the class be certified. *Washington overtime class action* On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County, or the Slack Compliant. The Slack Compliant was removed to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-11438-0. The putative class includes all current and former Washington State based employee drivers during the three year statutory period alleging that they were not paid overtime in accordance with Washington State law and that they were not properly paid for meal and rest periods. We intend to vigorously defend certification of the class as well as the merits of these matters should the class be certified. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. *Arizona FCRA class action* On August 8, 2011, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed by Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and Robert R. Bell, Jr. on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation Corporation: Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and Robert R. Bell, Jr. et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, case number 2:11-CV-01548-ROS, or the Daniel Complaint. Plaintiffs sought employment with Swift Transportation of Arizona, LLC (“Swift Arizona”) and that entity has answered the complaint. The putative class includes individuals throughout the United States who sought employment with Swift Arizona and about whom Swift Arizona procured a criminal background report for employment purposes during the application process. The complaint alleges Swift Arizona violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). Among the allegations are that we did not make adequate disclosures or obtain authorizations for applicants; ii) did not issue pre-adverse action notices for in-person applicants who were not hired in whole or in part because of a background report that contained at least one derogatory item that would disqualify the person under Swift Arizona’s hiring policies; and iii) did not issue adverse action notifications to applicants who were not hired in whole or in part because of a background report that contained at least one derogatory item that would disqualify the person from under Swift Arizona’s hiring policies. In October 2011, in response to a partial motion to dismiss filed by Swift Arizona, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, to which Swift Arizona answered in part, and after the court denied a partial motion to dismiss, Swift Arizona filed an answer addressing the remaining allegations. We intend to vigorously defend certification of the class as well as the merits of these matters should the class be certified. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. *Illinois discrimination class action* On October 3, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Steve C. Bluford on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Steve C. Bluford v Swift v. Transportation, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, case number 1-11CV-06932, or the Bluford Complaint. The putative class includes all African American employee drivers who worked from the Illinois terminal during the two year statutory period alleging that we failed to treat similarly situated African American employees in the same manner as Caucasian employees. The named plaintiff, Steve Bluford, previously filed an EEOC complaint raising the same allegations which was dismissed by the EEOC as having no merit. On May 16, 2012, the Court granted Swift’s motion to dismiss the class, but any class member retains their rights to pursue individual claims if they so elect.

Note 15. Contingencies

The Company is involved in certain claims and pending litigation primarily arising in the normal course of business. The majority of these claims relate to workers compensation, auto collision and liability, and physical damage and cargo damage. The Company expenses legal fees as incurred and accrues for the uninsured portion of contingent losses from these and other pending claims when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Based on the knowledge of the facts and, in certain cases, advice of outside counsel, management believes the resolution of claims and pending litigation, taking into account existing reserves, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future as the litigation and events related thereto unfold.

For certain cases described below, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals and/or (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

2004 owner-operator class action litigation

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CV07-0472. The putative class originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with us under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place for one year. The putative class is alleging that we should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff’s petition for class certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision reversing the trial court’s denial of class certification and remanding the case back to the trial court. On November 14, 2008, we filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted our petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to reverse the trial court’s original denial of class certification and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further evaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles driven. On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the class to include employees. Upon certification, we filed a motion to compel arbitration as well as filing numerous motions in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class representative, and because the named owner-operator class representative only contracted with us for a three month period under a one year contract that no longer exists. In addition to these trial court motions, we also filed a petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court. On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and we filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals. During the month of April 2012, the court issued the following rulings with respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift’s motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift’s request to decertify the class; (3) granted Swift’s motion that there is no breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift’s motion to limit class size based on statute of limitations. We intend to continue to pursue all available appellate relief supported by the record, which we believe demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and, further, that the claims raised have no merit. We retain all of our defenses against liability and damages. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time.

Driving academy class action litigation

On March 11, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf, and Francis Wolf on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Michael Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf and Francis Wolf v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-02145-STA-dkv, or the Ham Complaint. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Western Section of Tennessee Western Division. The putative class involves former students of our Tennessee driving academy who are seeking relief against us for the suspension of their Commercial Driver Licenses, or CDLs, and any CDL retesting that may be required of the former students by the relevant state department of motor vehicles. The allegations arise from the Tennessee Department of Safety, or TDOS, having released a general statement questioning the validity of CDLs issued by the State of Tennessee in connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in the State of Tennessee. We have filed an answer to the Ham Complaint. We have also filed a cross claim against the Commissioner of the TDOS, or the Commissioner, for a judicial declaration and judgment that we did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a grant of injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by us and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such publications. The Commissioner’s motion to dismiss our cross claim has been dismissed by the court.

On or about April 23, 2009, two class action lawsuits were filed against us in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively: Michael Pascarella, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Sharon A. Harrington, Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 09-1921(JBS), in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, or the Pascarella Complaint; and Shawn McAlarnen et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Janet Dolan, Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing of The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 09-1737 (E.D. Pa.), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or the McAlarnen Complaint. Both putative class action complaints involve former students of our Tennessee driving academy who are seeking relief against us, the TDOS, and the state motor vehicle agencies for the threatened suspension of their CDLs and any CDL retesting that may be required of the former students by the relevant state department of motor vehicles. The potential suspension and CDL re-testing was initiated by certain states in response to the general statement by the TDOS questioning the validity of CDL licenses the State of Tennessee issued in connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in Tennessee. The Pascarella Complaint and the McAlarnen Complaint are both based upon substantially the same facts and circumstances as alleged in the Ham Complaint. The only notable difference among the three complaints is that both the Pascarella and McAlarnen Complaints name the local motor vehicles agency and the TDOS as defendants, whereas the Ham Complaint does not. We deny the allegations of any alleged wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend our position. The McAlarnen Complaint has been dismissed without prejudice because the McAlarnen plaintiff has elected to pursue the Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for damages. We have filed an answer to the Pascarella Complaint. We have also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner for a judicial declaration and judgment that we did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request for injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by us and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such publications. The Commissioner’s motion to dismiss our cross claim has been dismissed by the court.

On May 29, 2009, we were served with two additional class action complaints involving the same alleged facts as set forth in the Ham Complaint and the Pascarella Complaint. The two matters are Gerald L. Lott and Francisco Armenta on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. and David Mitchell the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 2:09-cv-02287, filed on May 7, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, or the Lott Complaint; and Marylene Broadnax on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-6486-7, filed on May 22, 2009 in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, State of Georgia, or the Broadnax Complaint. While the Ham Complaint, the Pascarella Complaint, and the Lott Complaint all were filed in federal district courts, the Broadnax Complaint was filed in state court. As with all of these related complaints, we have filed an answer to the Lott Complaint and the Broadnax Complaint. We have also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner for a judicial declaration and judgment that we did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request for injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by us and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such publications. The Commissioner’s motion to dismiss our cross claim has been dismissed by the court. The portion of the Lott complaint against the Commissioner has been dismissed as a result of a settlement agreement reached between the approximately 138 Lott class members and the Commissioner granting the class members 90 days to retake the test for their CDL.

The Pascarella Complaint, the Lott Complaint, and the Broadnax Complaint are consolidated with the Ham Complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and discovery is ongoing.

On July 1, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Western division entered an order of court granting class certification of the consolidated matters. We believe that the court committed reversible error in granting class certification and on July 15, 2011 we filed a motion for reconsideration of the class certification determination.

In November 2011 and February 2012, we engaged in voluntary mediation in an attempt to resolve the matter and mitigate costs and risks of ongoing litigation. On June 14, 2012, the parties submitted to the court a petition for approval of a settlement agreement in resolution of the entire matter. Subject to preliminary and final approval of the settlement by the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Swift has agreed to make certain payments to qualifying class members on a claims made basis which will be within a dollar range of $2 million to $2.5 million and Swift will also agree to relinquish any legal claims to amounts owed by class members for unpaid academy tuition. The cost of settlement to Swift, including cash payments, related costs and charge offs, is not expected to result in any additional material charges or financial impact to the Company. Although Swift will relinquish its legal rights to amounts owed to it by class members for unpaid academy tuition, such amounts were fully reserved for in prior periods in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and thus no additional charges will be recorded for the relinquishment of such unpaid tuition receivables in connection with the settlement.

Owner-operator misclassification class action litigation

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against Swift Transportation and IEL: John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 09-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Sheer Complaint. The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that we misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, and various New York and California state laws and that such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs, approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have joined this lawsuit. Upon our motion, the matter has been transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court in Arizona. On May 10, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the potential class members. On June 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30, 2010, the District Court granted Swift’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. The court further denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and motion for conditional class certification. The Court also denied plaintiff’s request to arbitrate the matter as a class. The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking that the District Court’s order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the court denied the plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus and plaintiff’s filed another request for interlocutory appeal. On December 9, 2011, the court permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with their interlocutory appeal. We intend to vigorously defend against any arbitration proceedings. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time.

California wage, meal and rest employee class action

On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the Burnell Complaint. On June 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the central District of California, Case No. EDCV10-00809-VAP. The putative class includes drivers who worked for us during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that we failed to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment. The Burnell Complaint is currently subject to a stay of proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case unrelated to Swift, Brinker v Hohnbaum, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court.

On April 5, 2012, we were served with an additional class action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in the Burnell Complaint. This new class action is James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernadino, or the Rudsell Complaint.

We intend to vigorously defend certification of the class in both matters as well as the merits of these matters should the classes be certified. The final disposition of both cases and the impact of such final dispositions of these cases cannot be determined at this time.

California owner-operator and employee driver class action

On July 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael Sanders against Swift Transportation and IEL: Michael Sanders individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Case No. 10523440 in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, or the Sanders Complaint. The putative class involves both owner-operators and driver employees alleging differing claims against Swift and IEL. Many of the claims alleged by both the putative class of owner-operators and the putative class of employee drivers overlap the same claims as alleged in the Sheer Complaint with respect to owner-operators and the Burnell Complaint as it relates to employee drivers. As alleged in the Sheer Complaint, the putative class includes owner-operators of Swift during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that we misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of FLSA and various California state laws and that such owner-operators should be considered employees. As also alleged in the Sheer Complaint, the owner-operator portion of the Sanders Complaint also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL. As alleged in the Burnell Complaint, the putative class in the Sanders Complaint includes drivers who worked for us during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that we failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate wage statements upon separation from employment, and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment. The Sanders Complaint also raises two issues with respect to the owner-operators and two issues with respect to drivers that were not also alleged as part of either the Sheer Complaint or the Burnell Complaint. These separate owner-operator claims allege that we failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to properly compensate for waiting times. The separate employee driver claims allege that we failed to reimburse business expenses and coerced driver employees to patronize the employer. The Sanders Complaint seeks to create two classes, one which is mostly (but not entirely) encompassed by the Sheer Complaint and another which is mostly (but not entirely) encompassed by the Burnell Complaint. Upon our motion, the Sanders Complaint has been transferred from the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 17, 2012, the court entered an order dismissing plaintiff’s case and granting Swift’s motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the January 17, 2012 order.

Environmental notice

On April 17, 2009, we received a notice from the Lower Willamette Group, or LWG, advising that there are a total of 250 potentially responsible parties, or PRPs, with respect to alleged environmental contamination of the Lower Willamette River in Portland, Oregon designated as the Portland Harbor Superfund site, or the Site, and that as a previous landowner at the Site we have been asked to join a group of 60 PRPs and proportionately contribute to (i) reimbursement of funds expended by LWG to investigate environmental contamination at the Site and (ii) remediation costs of the same, rather than be exposed to potential litigation. Although we do not believe we contributed any contaminants to the Site, we were at one time the owner of property at the Site and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act imposes a standard of strict liability on property owners with respect to environmental claims. Notwithstanding this standard of strict liability, we believe our potential proportionate exposure to be minimal and not material. No formal complaint has been filed in this matter. Our pollution liability insurer has been notified of this potential claim. We do not believe the outcome of this matter is likely to have a material adverse effect on us. However, the final disposition of this matter and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time.

California and Oregon minimum wage class action

On July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, or the Montalvo Complaint. The Montalvo Complaint was removed to federal court on August 15, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-01827-L. Upon petition by plaintiffs, the matter was remanded to state court and we filed an appeal to this remand. On July 11, 2011 a class action lawsuit was filed by Glen Ridderbush on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Ridderbush et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona LLC and Swift Transportation Services, LLC in the Circuit Court for the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, or the Ridderbush Complaint. The Ridderbush Complaint was removed to federal court on August 24, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-01028. Both putative classes include employees alleging that candidates for employment within the four year statutory period in California and within the three year statutory period in Oregon, were not paid the state mandated minimum wage during their orientation phase.

On July 17, 2012, we engaged in a voluntary mediation session with the parties involved in the Ridderbush Complaint in an attempt to resolve the matter in order to avoid litigation and mitigate legal expense.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the case, and we retain all of our defenses against liability and damages pending a determination of class certification. We intend to vigorously defend against certification of the class as well as the merits of this matter should the class be certified.

Washington overtime class action

On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County, or the Slack Compliant. The Slack Compliant was removed to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-11438-0. The putative class includes all current and former Washington State based employee drivers during the three year statutory period alleging that they were not paid overtime in accordance with Washington State law and that they were not properly paid for meal and rest periods. We intend to vigorously defend certification of the class as well as the merits of these matters should the class be certified. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time.

Arizona FCRA class action

On August 8, 2011, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed by Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and Robert R. Bell, Jr. on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation Corporation: Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and Robert R. Bell, Jr. et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, case number 2:11-CV-01548-ROS, or the Daniel Complaint. Plaintiffs sought employment with Swift Transportation of Arizona, LLC (“Swift Arizona”) and that entity has answered the complaint. The putative class includes individuals throughout the United States who sought employment with Swift Arizona and about whom Swift Arizona procured a criminal background report for employment purposes during the application process. The complaint alleges Swift Arizona violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). Among the allegations are that we did not make adequate disclosures or obtain authorizations for applicants; ii) did not issue pre-adverse action notices for in-person applicants who were not hired in whole or in part because of a background report that contained at least one derogatory item that would disqualify the person under Swift Arizona’s hiring policies; and iii) did not issue adverse action notifications to applicants who were not hired in whole or in part because of a background report that contained at least one derogatory item that would disqualify the person from under Swift Arizona’s hiring policies. In October 2011, in response to a partial motion to dismiss filed by Swift Arizona, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, to which Swift Arizona answered in part, and after the court denied a partial motion to dismiss, Swift Arizona filed an answer addressing the remaining allegations. We intend to vigorously defend certification of the class as well as the merits of these matters should the class be certified. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time.

Illinois discrimination class action

On October 3, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Steve C. Bluford on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Steve C. Bluford v Swift v. Transportation, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, case number 1-11CV-06932, or the Bluford Complaint. The putative class includes all African American employee drivers who worked from the Illinois terminal during the two year statutory period alleging that we failed to treat similarly situated African American employees in the same manner as Caucasian employees. The named plaintiff, Steve Bluford, previously filed an EEOC complaint raising the same allegations which was dismissed by the EEOC as having no merit. On May 16, 2012, the Court granted Swift’s motion to dismiss the class, but any class member retains their rights to pursue individual claims if they so elect.