Short-term investments include $35,138,000 in current maturities of investments held by the Company’s insurance segment at June 29, 2019. The

non-current p

ortion of the bond portfolio of $

80,682,000

is included in other assets. The short-term investments, together with $

33,199,000

non-current

investments, provide collateral for the $

61,503,000

of letters of credit issued to guarantee payment of insurance claims. As of June

2019

, Landstar also had $

34,367,000

of additional letters of credit outstanding under the Company’s Credit Agreement.

On January 25, 2019, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino against Landstar System, Inc. and Landstar Ranger, Inc. (together, the “Defendants”). The complaint purports to bring this action on behalf of Hany Tanious, as an individual, and “all owner operators who performed work for the Defendants, and who were classified as independent contractors, during the four years preceding the filing of this action through the present.” On June 11, 2019, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal that resulted in the removal of the case from state court to federal court, where it was assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer of the United State District Court for the Central District of California. Mr. Tanious is a truck owner-operator and formerly an independent contractor who was a party to an independent contractor operating agreement with Landstar Ranger, Inc. The complaint asserts claims based on the alleged misclassification of Mr. Tanious as an independent contractor and alleges violations under California law relating to overtime, minimum wage, meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse certain expenses, wage statements, waiting time and unfair competition. Mr. Tanious is seeking, on behalf of himself and the purported class, payment of minimum wages, restitution and certain statutory damages and penalties, including compensatory, consequential, general, liquidated and special damages. None of the California Labor Code provisions under which Mr. Tanious seeks relief apply to independent contractors. Due to a number of factors including the preliminary status of this matter, the Company does not believe it is in a position to conclude whether or not there is a reasonable possibility of an adverse outcome in this case or what damages, if any, the plaintiffs would be awarded should they prevail on all or any part of their claims. However, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and it intends to assert these defenses vigorously.

The Company is involved in certain claims and pending litigation arising from the normal conduct of business. Many of these claims are covered in whole or in part by insurance. Based on knowledge of the facts and, in certain cases, opinions of outside counsel, management believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses with respect to the resolution of all such claims and pending litigation and that the ultimate outcome, after provisions therefor, will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Company, but could have a material effect on the results of operations in a given quarter or year.