Commitments And Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments And Contingencies

Commitments And Contingencies

10. Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Obligations

In connection with its outsourcing initiative, Con-way entered into agreements with third-party service providers in the first quarter of 2010. Payments to the third-party providers are estimated to be $240 million between 2011 and 2016, when the agreements are expected to expire. The payments under the terms of the agreements are subject to change depending on the quantities and types of services consumed. The estimated payments reflect amounts based on projections of services expected to be consumed. The contracts also contain provisions that allow Con-way to terminate the contract at any time; however, Con-way would be required to pay additional fees if termination is for causes other than the failure of the service providers to perform. If Con-way had elected, for convenience, to terminate the contract for the outsourced information-technology services at December 31, 2010, the termination fee would have been approximately $39 million, compared to approximately $34 million if Con-way elects to terminate the contract on December 31, 2011.

Menlo Worldwide, LLC

Menlo Worldwide, LLC ("MW") has asserted claims against the sellers of Chic Holdings, which MW acquired in 2007, alleging inaccurate books and records, misstatement of revenue, and other similar matters related to the pre-sale financial performance of the Chic businesses and is pursuing all legal and equitable remedies available to MW. There currently exists a $9 million hold-back in escrow against which MW may apply any award for breach of warranty under the purchase agreement. The ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain and any resulting award will not be recognized until received.

Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc.

In February 2002, a lawsuit was filed against Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. ("EWA") in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act") in connection with employee layoffs and ultimate terminations due to the August 2001 grounding of EWA's airline operations and the shutdown of the airline operations in December 2001. The court subsequently certified the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of affected employees laid off between August 11 and August 15, 2001. The WARN Act generally requires employers to give 60-days notice, or 60-days pay and benefits in lieu of notice, of any shutdown of operations or mass layoff at a site of employment. The lawsuit was tried in early January 2009, and on September 28, 2009, the court issued its decision in favor of EWA. The Plaintiffs appealed the judgment and the District Court's decision was affirmed on February 16, 2011. Plaintiffs' petitions for rehearing of the appellate court's decision were denied by orders dated March 4, 2011 and March 9, 2011. Plaintiffs filed a petition with the Supreme Court on June 7, 2011 arguing that the lower courts were wrong in ruling that there is no right to a jury trial in a WARN Act case. Plaintiffs contend that there is a split in the circuit courts on the issue and that the Supreme Court should review the case to resolve that split. Con-way filed its opposition to the petition on July 14, 2011.

Con-way is a defendant in various other lawsuits incidental to its businesses. It is the opinion of management that the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material effect on Con-way's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.