Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	7. Commitments and Contingencies The Company is party to certain legal proceedings incidental to its business. The ultimate disposition of these matters, in the opinion of management, based in part on the advice of legal counsel, is not expected to have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. For the cases described below, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of loss because, among other reasons, (1) the proceedings are in various stages; (2) damages have not been sought; (3) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (4) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of the proceedings, including pending appeals; and/or (5) 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. California Wage and Hour Class Action Litigation On December 23, 2015, a former driver filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. The Company removed the case from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The district court denied plaintiff’s initial motion for class certification of a class comprised of any employee driver who has driven in California at any time since December 23, 2011, without prejudice, under Rule 26 due to lack of commonality amongst the putative class members. The Court granted the plaintiff’s revised Motion for Class Certification, and the certified class now consists of all employee drivers who resided in California and who have driven in the State of California on behalf of U.S. Xpress at any time since December 23, 2011. The case alleges that class members were not paid for off-the-clock work, were not provided duty free meal or rest breaks, and were not paid premium pay in their absence, were not paid the California minimum wage for all hours worked in that state, were not provided accurate and complete itemized wage statements and were not paid all accrued wages at the end of their employment, all in violation of California law. The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties, injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. On May 2, 2019, the district court dismissed on grounds of preemption the claims alleging failure to provide duty free meal and rest breaks or to pay premium pay for failure to provide such breaks under California law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the administrative ruling that formed the basis for the district court’s ruling. The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims, and the Company filed a motion to decertify the class. The court recently issued its ruling on the pending cross-motions: (1) the court denied the Company’s motion to decertify the class; (2) the court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s minimum wage claim for non-driving duties such as pre-trip and post-trip inspection, fueling, receiving dispatches, waiting to load or unload, and handling paperwork for the loads for January 1, 2013 forward (leaving the minimum wage claim only for the approximate one-year time period from December 23, 2011 to December 31, 2012); (3) the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for the time spent taking Department of Transportation-required 10-hour breaks while hauling high value loads in California for solo drivers and for the designated team driver responsible for the load; and (4) the court denied the balance of cross-motions. The plaintiff filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the court’s decision on the minimum wage claim, which the district court and the Ninth Circuit both granted. The appeal is fully-briefed, and the Ninth Circuit set June 10, 2021 as the date for oral argument on the appeal. The district court stayed the trial that had been scheduled to start on February 16, 2021. It will be reset after the appeal is decided. The parties are currently engaged in expert discovery while the appeal is ongoing. We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these claims. Stockholder Claims As set forth below, between November 2018 and April 2019, eight substantially similar putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain other defendants: five in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee (“Tennessee State Court Cases”), two in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (“Federal Court Cases”), and one in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (“New York State Court Case”). All of these matters are in preliminary stages of litigation. We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe the allegations made in the complaints are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters. As to the Tennessee State Court Cases, two of five complaints were voluntarily dismissed and the remaining three were consolidated with a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Consolidated State Court Complaint”) filed on May 10, 2019 in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against the Company, five of our current and former officers or directors, and the seven underwriters who participated in our June 2018 initial public offering (“IPO”), alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). The putative class action lawsuit is based on allegations that the Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the IPO. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) on behalf of the putative class. On June 28, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Tennessee State Court Cases for failure to allege facts sufficient to support a violation of Section 11, 12 or 15 of the Securities Act. On November 13, 2020, the court presiding over the Tennessee State Court Cases entered an order, granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated State Court Complaint. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the Securities Act with respect to the majority of statements challenged as false or misleading in the Consolidated State Court Complaint. The court, however, held that the Consolidated State Court Complaint sufficiently alleged violations of the Securities Act with respect to one statement from the June 2018 IPO registration statement and prospectus that the plaintiffs alleged to be false or misleading, both on theories of alleged misrepresentations and material omissions. Accordingly, the court allowed this action to proceed beyond the pleading stage, but only with respect to the statement deemed sufficient to support a Securities Act claim when assuming the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations. The Tennessee State Court Cases are currently in discovery. As to the Federal Court Cases, the operative amended complaint was filed on October 8, 2019 (“Amended Federal Complaint”), which named the same defendants as the Tennessee State Court Cases. The Amended Federal Complaint is made on behalf of a putative class. In addition to claims for alleged violations of Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, the Amended Federal Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. On December 23, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Federal Complaint in its entirety for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim under either the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that Motion on March 9, 2020, and the defendants filed their Reply brief on April 23, 2020. On June 30, 2020, the court presiding over the Federal Court Cases issued its ruling granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Amended Federal Complaint. The court dismissed entirely the plaintiffs’ claims for alleged violations of the Exchange Act and further held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the Securities Act with respect to the majority of statements challenged as false or misleading in the Amended Federal Complaint. The court, however, held that the Federal Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged violations of the Securities Act with respect to two statements from the June 2018 IPO registration statement and prospectus that the plaintiffs alleged to be false or misleading, both on theories of alleged misrepresentations and material omissions. Accordingly, the court allowed this action to proceed beyond the pleading stage, but only with respect to the statements deemed sufficient to support a Securities Act claim when assuming the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations. On February 12, 2021, the Court granted plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and certified a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired USX stock pursuant to and/or traceable to the IPO and who were damaged thereby. The Federal Court Cases are currently in discovery. As to the New York State Case, on March 14, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the Tennessee State Court Cases. On December 18, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or Stay the New York State Case both on the merits and in deference to the pending actions in Tennessee. On March 5, 2021, the court residing over the New York State Case dismissed the case. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal and a motion to vacate the dismissal, which remain pending. Stockholder Derivative Action On June 7, 2019, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada against five of our executives and all five of our independent board members (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), and naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO and that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing or allowing the Company to make such statements. The complaint alleges that the Company has been damaged by the alleged wrongful conduct as a result of, among other things, being subjected to the time and expense of the securities class action lawsuits that have been filed relating to the IPO. In addition to a claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duties, the lawsuit alleges claims against the Individual Defendants for unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The parties have stipulated to a stay of this proceeding pending entry of a final judgment in the Tennessee State Court Cases, Federal Court Case, and the New York State Case. This matter is in the preliminary stages of litigation. We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe the allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Independent Contractor Class Action On March 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee against the Company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. The putative class includes all individuals who performed work for U.S. Xpress, Inc. or U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. as lease drivers from March 26, 2016 to present. The complaint alleges that independent contractors are improperly designated as such and should be designated as employees and thus subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The complaint further alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.’s pay practices for the putative class members violated the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA for the period from March 26, 2016 to present. The complaint further alleges that the Company violated the requirements of the Truth in Leasing Act with regard to the independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements it entered into with the putative class members. The complaint further alleges that the Company failed to comply with the terms of the independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements entered into with the putative class members, that it violated the provisions of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in advertising, describing and marketing the lease purchase program to the putative class members, and that it was unjustly enriched as a result of the foregoing allegations. We filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on October 18, 2019. On January 17, 2020, the court granted that motion, in part, compelling arbitration on all of the plaintiff’s claims and denying the plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. The court further stayed the matter pending arbitration, rather than dismissing it entirely. On March 6, 2020, the plaintiff petitioned the court to certify the decision for an interlocutory appeal. The Company filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion on March 20, 2020, and plaintiff filed her reply on April 3, 2020, purportedly relying, in part, on a recent case from Massachusetts. In response to that newly cited case, the Company was granted leave to file a surreply, which it filed on April 13, 2020. On September 3, 2020, the district court denied Plaintiff’s petition. The plaintiff initiated arbitration on the claims on December 16, 2020. On March 25, 2021, the arbitrator issued a scheduling order, setting a final arbitration hearing for June 6, 2022.There has been no discovery in this matter, and we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe the allegations made in the complaint and demand are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. On June 25, 2020, a second putative collective and class action complaint was filed against the Company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The putative class and collective action includes all current and former over-the-road truck drivers classified as independent contractors who performed work for the Company during the applicable statute of limitations. The complaint alleges that independent contractors are improperly designated as such and should be designated as employees subject to the FLSA. The complaint alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.’s pay practices for the putative collective and class members violated the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA for the period from June 25, 2017 to the present. The complaint further alleges that we failed to pay the plaintiff and members of the class for all miles they drove and breached the contract between the parties and that we were unjustly enriched as a result of the foregoing allegations. The plaintiff agreed to submit his claims to individual arbitration and filed an arbitration demand on July 31, 2020. The parties agreed to settle the matter, for a nominal amount and are working to finalize the settlement agreement and to seek court approval of the settlement. The parties will also ask the court to dismiss the case, with prejudice. The Company continues to deny the allegations made in the complaint and demand. Other The Company had letters of credit of $28.1 million outstanding as of March 31, 2021. The letters of credit are maintained primarily to support the Company’s insurance program. The Company had cancelable commitments outstanding at March 31, 2021 to acquire revenue equipment and other equipment for approximately $104.6 million during the remainder of 2021. These purchase commitments are expected to be financed by operating leases, long-term debt and proceeds from sales of existing equipment.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

7. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is party to certain legal proceedings incidental to its business. The ultimate disposition of these matters, in the opinion of management, based in part on the advice of legal counsel, is not expected to have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

For the cases described below, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of loss because, among other reasons, (1) the proceedings are in various stages; (2) damages have not been sought; (3) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (4) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of the proceedings, including pending appeals; and/or (5) 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.

California Wage and Hour Class Action Litigation

On December 23, 2015, a former driver filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. The Company removed the case from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The district court denied plaintiff’s initial motion for class certification of a class comprised of any employee driver who has driven in California at any time since December 23, 2011, without prejudice, under Rule 26 due to lack of commonality amongst the putative class members. The Court granted the plaintiff’s revised Motion for Class Certification, and the certified class now consists of all employee drivers who resided in California and who have driven in the State of California on behalf of U.S. Xpress at any time since December 23, 2011. The case alleges that class members were not paid for off-the-clock work, were not provided duty free meal or rest breaks, and were not paid premium pay in their absence, were not paid the California minimum wage for all hours worked in that state, were not provided accurate and complete itemized wage statements and were not paid all accrued wages at the end of their employment, all in violation of California law. The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties, injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. On May 2, 2019, the district court dismissed on grounds of preemption the claims alleging failure to provide duty free meal and rest breaks or to pay premium pay for failure to provide such breaks under California law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the administrative ruling that formed the basis for the district court’s ruling. The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims, and the Company filed a motion to decertify the class. The court recently issued its ruling on the pending cross-motions: (1) the court denied the Company’s motion to decertify the class; (2) the court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s minimum wage claim for non-driving duties such as pre-trip and post-trip inspection, fueling, receiving dispatches, waiting to load or unload, and handling paperwork for the loads for January 1, 2013 forward (leaving the minimum wage claim only for the approximate one-year time period from December 23, 2011 to December 31, 2012); (3) the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for the time spent taking Department of Transportation-required 10-hour breaks while hauling high value loads in California for solo drivers and for the designated team driver responsible for the load; and (4) the court denied the balance of cross-motions. The plaintiff filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the court’s decision on the minimum wage claim, which the district court and the Ninth Circuit both granted. The appeal is fully-briefed, and the Ninth Circuit set June 10, 2021 as the date for oral argument on the appeal. The district court stayed the trial that had been scheduled to start on February 16, 2021. It will be reset after the appeal is decided. The parties are currently engaged in expert discovery while the appeal is ongoing. We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these claims.

Stockholder Claims

As set forth below, between November 2018 and April 2019, eight substantially similar putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain other defendants: five in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee (“Tennessee State Court Cases”), two in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (“Federal Court Cases”), and one in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (“New York State Court Case”). All of these matters are in preliminary stages of litigation. We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe the allegations made in the complaints are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.

As to the Tennessee State Court Cases, two of five complaints were voluntarily dismissed and the remaining three were consolidated with a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Consolidated State Court Complaint”) filed on May 10, 2019 in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against the Company, five of our current and former officers or directors, and the seven underwriters who participated in our June 2018 initial public offering (“IPO”), alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). The putative class action lawsuit is based on allegations that the Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the IPO. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s Class A common stock pursuant

and/or traceable to the IPO, and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) on behalf of the putative class.

On June 28, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Tennessee State Court Cases for failure to allege facts sufficient to support a violation of Section 11, 12 or 15 of the Securities Act. On November 13, 2020, the court presiding over the Tennessee State Court Cases entered an order, granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated State Court Complaint. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the Securities Act with respect to the majority of statements challenged as false or misleading in the Consolidated State Court Complaint. The court, however, held that the Consolidated State Court Complaint sufficiently alleged violations of the Securities Act with respect to one statement from the June 2018 IPO registration statement and prospectus that the plaintiffs alleged to be false or misleading, both on theories of alleged misrepresentations and material omissions. Accordingly, the court allowed this action to proceed beyond the pleading stage, but only with respect to the statement deemed sufficient to support a Securities Act claim when assuming the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations. The Tennessee State Court Cases are currently in discovery.

As to the Federal Court Cases, the operative amended complaint was filed on October 8, 2019 (“Amended Federal Complaint”), which named the same defendants as the Tennessee State Court Cases. The Amended Federal Complaint is made on behalf of a putative class. In addition to claims for alleged violations of Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, the Amended Federal Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. On December 23, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Federal Complaint in its entirety for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim under either the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that Motion on March 9, 2020, and the defendants filed their Reply brief on April 23, 2020.

On June 30, 2020, the court presiding over the Federal Court Cases issued its ruling granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Amended Federal Complaint. The court dismissed entirely the plaintiffs’ claims for alleged violations of the Exchange Act and further held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the Securities Act with respect to the majority of statements challenged as false or misleading in the Amended Federal Complaint. The court, however, held that the Federal Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged violations of the Securities Act with respect to two statements from the June 2018 IPO registration statement and prospectus that the plaintiffs alleged to be false or misleading, both on theories of alleged misrepresentations and material omissions. Accordingly, the court allowed this action to proceed beyond the pleading stage, but only with respect to the statements deemed sufficient to support a Securities Act claim when assuming the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations. On February 12, 2021, the Court granted plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and certified a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired USX stock pursuant to and/or traceable to the IPO and who were damaged thereby. The Federal Court Cases are currently in discovery.

As to the New York State Case, on March 14, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in the Tennessee State Court Cases. On December 18, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or Stay the New York State Case both on the merits and in deference to the pending actions in Tennessee. On March 5, 2021, the court residing over the New York State Case dismissed the case. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal and a motion to vacate the dismissal, which remain pending.

Stockholder Derivative Action

On June 7, 2019, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada against five of our executives and all five of our independent board members (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), and naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO and that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing or allowing the Company to make such statements. The complaint alleges that the Company has been damaged by the alleged wrongful conduct as a

result of, among other things, being subjected to the time and expense of the securities class action lawsuits that have been filed relating to the IPO. In addition to a claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duties, the lawsuit alleges claims against the Individual Defendants for unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The parties have stipulated to a stay of this proceeding pending entry of a final judgment in the Tennessee State Court Cases, Federal Court Case, and the New York State Case. This matter is in the preliminary stages of litigation. We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe the allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

Independent Contractor Class Action

On March 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee against the Company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. The putative class includes all individuals who performed work for U.S. Xpress, Inc. or U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. as lease drivers from March 26, 2016 to present. The complaint alleges that independent contractors are improperly designated as such and should be designated as employees and thus subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The complaint further alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.’s pay practices for the putative class members violated the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA for the period from March 26, 2016 to present. The complaint further alleges that the Company violated the requirements of the Truth in Leasing Act with regard to the independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements it entered into with the putative class members. The complaint further alleges that the Company failed to comply with the terms of the independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements entered into with the putative class members, that it violated the provisions of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in advertising, describing and marketing the lease purchase program to the putative class members, and that it was unjustly enriched as a result of the foregoing allegations. We filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on October 18, 2019. On January 17, 2020, the court granted that motion, in part, compelling arbitration on all of the plaintiff’s claims and denying the plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. The court further stayed the matter pending arbitration, rather than dismissing it entirely. On March 6, 2020, the plaintiff petitioned the court to certify the decision for an interlocutory appeal. The Company filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion on March 20, 2020, and plaintiff filed her reply on April 3, 2020, purportedly relying, in part, on a recent case from Massachusetts. In response to that newly cited case, the Company was granted leave to file a surreply, which it filed on April 13, 2020. On September 3, 2020, the district court denied Plaintiff’s petition. The plaintiff initiated arbitration on the claims on December 16, 2020. On March 25, 2021, the arbitrator issued a scheduling order, setting a final arbitration hearing for June 6, 2022.There has been no discovery in this matter, and we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe the allegations made in the complaint and demand are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

On June 25, 2020, a second putative collective and class action complaint was filed against the Company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The putative class and collective action includes all current and former over-the-road truck drivers classified as independent contractors who performed work for the Company during the applicable statute of limitations. The complaint alleges that independent contractors are improperly designated as such and should be designated as employees subject to the FLSA. The complaint alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.’s pay practices for the putative collective and class members violated the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA for the period from June 25, 2017 to the present. The complaint further alleges that we failed to pay the plaintiff and members of the class for all miles they drove and breached the contract between the parties and that we were unjustly enriched as a result of the foregoing allegations. The plaintiff agreed to submit his claims to individual arbitration and filed an arbitration demand on July 31, 2020. The parties agreed to settle the matter, for a nominal amount and are working to finalize the settlement agreement and to seek court approval of the settlement. The parties will also ask the court to dismiss the case, with prejudice. The Company continues to deny the allegations made in the complaint and demand.

Other

The Company had letters of credit of $28.1 million outstanding as of March 31, 2021. The letters of credit are maintained primarily to support the Company’s insurance program.

The Company had cancelable commitments outstanding at March 31, 2021 to acquire revenue equipment and other equipment for approximately $104.6 million during the remainder of 2021. These purchase commitments are expected to be financed by operating leases, long-term debt and proceeds from sales of existing equipment.