Roadrunner Transp (RRTS) Risk Analysis

We are a defendant in various purported class-action lawsuits alleging violations of various labor laws. We are a defendant in a number of purported class-action lawsuits alleging violations of various California labor laws and one purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Additionally, the California Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement has brought administrative actions against us alleging that we violated various California labor laws. In 2017 and 2018, we reached settlement agreements on a number of these labor related lawsuits and administrative actions. As of December 31,2019 and 2018, we recorded a liability for settlements, litigation, and defense costs related to these labor matters, the Central Cal Matter, and the Warren Matter (defined below) of approximately $1.0 million and $10.8 million, respectively, which are recorded in accrued expenses and other current liabilities. In addition, tax and other regulatory authorities have in the past sought to assert that independent contractors in the trucking industry are employees rather than independent contractors. There can be no assurance that these authorities will not successfully assert this position against us or that tax and other laws that currently consider these persons ICs will not change. If our ICs are determined to be our employees, we would incur additional exposure under federal and state tax, workers' compensation, unemployment benefits, labor, employment, and tort laws, including for prior periods, as well as potential liability for employee benefits, tax withholdings, and penalties and interest. Our business model relies on the fact that our ICs are independent contractors and not deemed to be our employees, and exposure to any of the above factors could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations. California continues to present potential reclassification exposure to our Company's operations in that state, especially in light of the recent California Supreme Court decision in Dynamix Operations West, Inc. v. Lee, which found that the defendant's independent contractors were properly classified as employees using the ABC test. Under the ABC test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the business proves that (A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.  However, as noted by the Court in Dynamix, any reclassification analysis under the ABC test is subject to the unique facts of each case and thus does not necessarily mean that our contractors in California would be reclassified as employees under California law. In September 2019, the State of California enacted California Assembly Bill 5 codifying the ABC test into California law. If California interprets individual owner-operators to be in the same business as motor carriers, the individual owner-operators under lease to our companies would be considered employees for purposes of claims governed by wage order number 9, including minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest breaks, and wage statements. We have approximately 300 non-employee drivers in California that may be impacted by this interpretation.

Our business depends to a large extent on our ability to provide consistent, high quality, technology-enabled transportation and logistics solutions. We generally do not own or control the transportation assets that deliver our customers' freight, and we generally do not employ the people directly involved in delivering the freight. We rely on third parties to provide less-than-truckload, truckload and intermodal brokerage, and domestic and international air services and to report certain information to us, including information relating to delivery status and freight claims. This reliance could cause delays in providing our customers with timely delivery of freight and important service data, as well as in the financial reporting of certain events, including recognizing revenue and recording claims. Carrier bankruptcy may also disrupt our business by delaying movement of the cargo, creating an inability to get access to equipment, and increasing our rates. If we are unable to secure sufficient transportation services to meet our customer commitments, or if any of the third parties we rely on do not meet our needs or expectations, or those of our customers, our results of operations could be adversely affected, and our customers could switch to our competitors temporarily or permanently.

Our operations are regulated and licensed by various federal and state agencies in the United States and similar governmental agencies in foreign countries in which we operate. These regulatory agencies have authority and oversight of domestic and international transportation services and related activities, licensure, motor carrier operations, safety and security, and other matters. We must comply with various insurance and surety bond requirements to act in the capacities for which we are licensed. Our subsidiaries and ICs must also comply with applicable regulations and requirements of such agencies. Through our subsidiaries, we hold various licenses required to carry out our domestic and international services. These licenses permit us to provide services as a motor carrier, property broker, air carrier, indirect air carrier, ocean transportation intermediary, non-vessel operating common carrier, freight forwarder, and ocean freight forwarder. We also are subject to regulations and requirements promulgated by, among others, the DOT, FMCSA, DHS, CBP, TSA, FMC, IATA, USDA, FDA, FWS, BATF, FAA and various other international, domestic, state, and local agencies and port authorities. Our failure to maintain our required licenses, or to comply with applicable regulations, could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, or financial condition. See the section entitled "Regulation" in Item 1 of this Form 10-K for more information. In addition, DHS regulations applicable to our customers who import goods into the United States and our contracted ocean carriers may impact our ability to provide and/or receive services with and from these parties. Enforcement measures related to violations of these regulations can slow and/or prevent the delivery of shipments, which may negatively impact our operations. We incur significant costs to operate our business and monitor our compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The regulatory requirements governing our operations are subject to change based on new legislation and regulatory initiatives, which could affect the economics of the transportation industry by requiring changes in operating practices or influencing the demand for, and the cost of providing, transportation services. We cannot predict what impact future regulations may have on our business. Compliance with existing, new, or more stringent measures could disrupt or impede the timing of our deliveries and our ability to satisfy the needs of our customers. We have adopted various policies and procedures intended to ensure our compliance with regulatory requirements. We cannot provide assurance that these policies and procedures will be adequate or effective. Additionally, we are also subject to the risk that our employees may inadvertently or deliberately circumvent established controls. The financial and reputational impact of control failures could be significant. In addition, we may experience an increase in operating costs, such as security costs, as a result of governmental regulations that have been and will be adopted in response to terrorist activities and potential terrorist activities. The cost of compliance with existing or future measures could adversely affect our results of operations. Further, we could become subject to liabilities as a result of a failure to comply with applicable regulations. We are subject to various income and other taxes, primarily in the U.S. and its political subdivisions.  Compliance with ever-changing tax statutes and regulations is complex, time-consuming, and subject to examination by taxing authorities.  On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the "Tax Reform Act") was signed into United States law, and most changes became effective as of January 1, 2018. Overall, we expect that the Tax Reform Act will be financially and cash flow beneficial to us.  The corporate income tax rate was reduced from 35% to 21%, the corporate alternative minimum tax system was eliminated, and net operating losses carry forward indefinitely.  The ability to accelerate depreciation deductions provides us flexibility with respect to the timing of deductions related to capital expenditures.  Though interest expense deductions may be limited annually, any disallowed interest expense carries forward indefinitely. Future changes to current tax laws could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition. Jeffrey Cox ("Cox") and David Chidester ("Chidester") filed a complaint against certain of our subsidiaries in state court in California in a post-acquisition dispute (the "Central Cal Matter"). The complaint alleges contract, statutory and tort-based claims arising out of the Stock Purchase Agreement, dated November 2, 2012, between the defendants, as buyers, and the plaintiffs, as sellers, for the purchase of the shares of Central Cal Transportation, Inc. and Double C Transportation, Inc. (the "Central Cal Agreement"). The plaintiffs claim that a contingent purchase obligation payment is due and owing pursuant to the Central Cal Agreement, and that defendants have furnished fraudulent calculations to the plaintiffs to avoid payment. The plaintiffs also claim violations of California's Labor Code related to the plaintiffs' respective employment with Central Cal Transportation, LLC. On October 27, 2017, the state court granted our motion to compel arbitration of all non-employment claims alleged in the complaint. The parties selected a settlement accountant to determine the contingent purchase obligation pursuant to the Central Cal Agreement. The settlement accountant provided a final determination that a contingent purchase obligation of $2.1 million is due to the plaintiffs. On July 5, 2019, the Court entered a judgment confirming the arbitration award. We satisfied the principal amount of the judgment. On July 10, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an application for an award of their fees in costs, seeking a minimum of $0.7 million in fees, and requesting that the Court apply a lodestar multiplier to enhance the fees to an award of either $1.1 million or $1.5 million based upon the complexity of the case. On January 17, 2020, the Court awarded the plaintiffs $0.5 million in total fees. With outstanding interest, the total amount owed by us was $0.6 million, which we paid on March 3, 2020. In February 2018, Chidester agreed to dismiss his employment-related claims from the Los Angeles Superior Court matter, while Cox transferred his employment claims from Los Angeles Superior Court to the related employment case pending in the Eastern District of California. There have been two summary judgment motions filed thus far, one by Cox and one by us. We successfully defeated Cox's motion for summary judgment, which resulted in a Court Order holding that Cox's non-compete was enforceable as to time and limited to the geographic are of California, Nevada, and Oregon where Central Cal conducts business. Cox filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which was denied. The Court thereafter granted partial summary judgment as to all claims except for the two whistleblower/retaliation claims and the public policy wrongful termination claim. The court then vacated the pre-trial conference and trial dates and has not reset them. In addition to the legal proceeding described above, we are a defendant in various purported class-action lawsuits alleging violations of various California labor laws and one purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Additionally, the California Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement has brought administrative actions against us alleging that we violated various California labor laws. In 2017 and 2018, we reached settlement agreements on a number of these labor related lawsuits and administrative actions. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, we recorded a liability for settlements, litigation, and defense costs related to these labor matters, the Central Cal Matter and the Warren Matter (defined below) of approximately $1.0 million and $10.8 million, respectively, which are recorded in accrued expenses and other current liabilities. In December 2018, a class action lawsuit was brought against us in the Superior Court of the State of California by Fernando Gomez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons, alleging violation of California labor laws. We intend to vigorously defend against such claims; however, there can be no assurance that we will be able to prevail. In light of the relatively early stage of the proceedings, we are unable to predict the potential costs or range of costs at this time.

The transportation industry is subject to seasonal sales fluctuations as shipments are generally lower during and after the winter holiday season. The productivity of our carriers historically decreases during the winter season because companies have the tendency to reduce their shipments during that time and inclement weather can impede operations. At the same time, our operating expenses could increase because harsh weather can lead to increased accident frequency rates and increased claims, as well as reduced commodity production (i.e. poultry, beef, fruit, produce). These commodities and other products we transport are also subject to disease, crop failure, reduction in production quantities or adjustments to automotive model changeovers. Any of the fluctuations could have an adverse effect on our revenues. If we were to experience lower-than-expected revenue during any such period, our expenses may not be offset, which could have an adverse impact on our results of operations.