Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	. Commitments and Contingencies Auto, Workers Compensation, and General Liability Reserves In the ordinary course of business, the Company is a defendant in several legal proceedings arising out of the conduct of its business. These proceedings include claims for property damage or personal injury incurred in connection with the Company’s services. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate disposition of these proceedings, the Company does not believe, based upon the information available at this time, that these property damage or personal injury claims, in the aggregate, will have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements. The Company maintains insurance for auto liability, general liability, and cargo claims. The Company maintains an aggregate of $100 million of auto liability and general liability insurance. The Company maintains auto liability insurance coverage for claims in excess of $1.0 million per occurrence and cargo coverage for claims in excess of $100,000 per occurrence. The Company is self-insured up to $1.0 million per occurrence for workers compensation. The Company believes it has adequate insurance to cover losses in excess of the self-insured and deductible amounts. As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the Company had reserves for estimated uninsured losses of $28.0 million and $26.8 million, respectively, included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities. General Litigation Proceedings Jeffrey Cox and David Chidester filed a complaint against certain of the Company’s 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 the Company’s 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. The Company's position is that this contingent purchase obligation is subject to offset for certain indemnification claims owed to the Company by the plaintiffs ranging from approximately $0.3 million to $1.0 million. Accordingly, the Company has recorded a contingent purchase obligation liability of $1.8 million in accrued expenses and other current liabilities. The Company intends to pursue indemnification and other claims as it relates to the Central Cal Matter and other related matters involving these plaintiffs. In February 2018, Plaintiff David Chidester agreed to dismiss his employment-related claims from the Los Angeles Superior Court matter, while Plaintiff Jeffrey Cox transferred his employment claims from Los Angeles Superior Court to the related employment case pending in the Eastern District of California. The parties are proceeding with discovery and the consolidated case is currently set for trial on November 5, 2019. The Company received a letter dated April 17, 2018 from legal counsel representing Warren Communications News, Inc. (“Warren”) in which Warren made certain allegations against the Company of copyright infringement concerning an electronic newsletter published by Warren (the “Warren Matter”). Specifically, Warren alleged that an employee of the Company had, for several years, forwarded that electronic newsletter to third parties in violation of corresponding subscription agreements. After discussions with Warren, the Company received a second letter dated July 30, 2018 in which counsel for Warren offered to settle its claim for a monetary payment by the Company. The Company subsequently sent a counter-offer to Warren, which was rejected. Mediation is set for June 17, 2019. In addition to the legal proceeding described above, the Company is 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 the Company alleging that the Company violated various California labor laws. In 2017 and 2018, the Company reached settlement agreements on a number of these labor related lawsuits and administrative actions. The Company paid approximately $9.2 million relating to these settlements during the three months ended March 31, 2019. As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the Company had a liability for settlements, litigation, and defense costs related to these labor matters, the Central Cal Matter and the Warren Matter of $1.6 million and $10.8 million, respectively, which are included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities. In December 2018, a class action lawsuit was brought against the Company 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. The Company is currently determining the effects of this lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend against such claims; however, there can be no assurance that it will be able to prevail. In light of the relatively early stage of the proceedings, the Company is unable to predict the potential costs or range of costs at this time. Securities Litigation Proceedings Following the Company's press release on January 30, 2017, three putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company and its former officers, Mark A. DiBlasi and Peter R. Armbruster. On May 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions under the caption In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144), and appointed Public Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 12, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed the Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”) on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between March 14, 2013 and January 30, 2017, inclusive. The CAC alleges (i) the Company and Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and (ii) Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster, the Company’s former Chairman Scott Rued, HCI Equity Partners, L.L.C., and HCI Equity Management, L.P. violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making or causing to be made materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts, regarding (a) the accuracy of the Company’s financial statements; (b) the Company’s true earnings and expenses; (c) the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and controls over financial reporting; (d) the true nature and depth of financial risk associated with the Company’s tractor lease guaranty program; (e) the Company’s leverage ratios and compliance with its credit facilities; and (f) the value of the goodwill the Company carried on its balance sheet. The CAC seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. On November 19, 2018, the parties entered into a binding term sheet agreeing to settle the action for $20 million, $17.9 million of which will be funded by the Company's D&O carriers ($4.8 million of which is by way of a pass through of the D&O carriers’ payment to the Company in connection with the settlement of the Federal Derivative Action described below). The settlement is conditioned on a settlement of the Federal Derivative Action described below, dismissal of the State Derivative Action described below, and final court approval of the settlements in this action and in the Federal Derivative Action.The parties have submitted a Stipulation of Settlement to the Court for preliminary approval. On May 25, 2017, Richard Flanagan filed a complaint alleging derivative claims on the Company's behalf in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin (Case No. 17-cv-004401) against Scott Rued, Mark DiBlasi, Christopher Doerr, John Kennedy, III, Brian Murray, James Staley, Curtis Stoelting, William Urkiel, Judith Vijums, Michael Ward, Chad Utrup, Ivor Evans, Peter Armbruster, and Brian van Helden (the “State Derivative Action”). Count I of the complaint alleges the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by “knowingly failing to ensure that the Company implemented and maintained adequate internal controls over its accounting and financial reporting functions,” and seeks unspecified damages. Count II of the complaint alleges the Officer Defendants DiBlasi, Armbruster, and van Helden received substantial performance-based compensation and bonuses for fiscal year 2014 that should be disgorged. The action has been stayed pending the District Court’s approval of the proposed settlement of the Federal Derivative Action, following which the defendants would move to dismiss this action as moot. While the case was stayed, the plaintiff obtained permission to file an amended complaint adding claims against two former Company employees: Bret Naggs and Mark Wogsland. On June 28, 2017, Jesse Kent filed a complaint alleging derivative claims on the Company's behalf and class action claims in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On December 22, 2017, Chester County Employees Retirement Fund filed a complaint alleging derivative claims on the Company's behalf in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On March 21, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the Kent and Chester County actions under the caption Kent v. Stoelting et al (Case No. 17-cv-00893) (the “Federal Derivative Action”). On March 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed their Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint alleging claims on behalf of the Company against Peter Armbruster, Mark DiBlasi, Scott Dobak, Christopher Doerr, Ivor Evans, Brian van Helden, John Kennedy III, Ralph Kittle, Brian Murray, Scott Rued, James Staley, Curtis Stoelting, William Urkiel, Chad Utrup, Judith Vijums, and Michael Ward. Count I alleges that several of the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 based upon alleged misrepresentations and omissions in several of the Company’s proxy statements. Count II alleges that all the defendants breached their fiduciary duty. Count III alleges that all the defendants wasted corporate assets. Count IV alleges that certain of the defendants were unjustly enriched. The Complaint seeks monetary damages, improvements to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, an accounting from defendants of the damages allegedly caused by them and the improper amounts the defendants allegedly obtained, and punitive damages. The parties have submitted a Stipulation of Settlement to the Court for preliminary approval, which provides for certain corporate governance changes and a $6.9 million payment, $4.8 million of which will be paid by the Company’s D&O carriers into an escrow account to be used by the Company to settle the class action described above and $2.1 million of which will be paid by the Company’s D&O carriers to cover plaintiffs attorney’s fees and expenses. Given the status of the matters above, the Company concluded in the third quarter of 2018 that a liability is probable and recorded the estimated loss of $22 million which is recorded within accrued expenses and other current liabilities and a corresponding insurance reimbursement receivable of $20 million which is recorded in prepaid expenses and other current assets for all periods presented. In addition, subsequent to the Company's announcement that certain previously filed financial statements should not be relied upon, the Company was contacted by the SEC, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The DOJ and Division of Enforcement of the SEC have commenced investigations into the events giving rise to the restatement. The Company has received formal requests for documents and other information. In June 2018, two of the Company's former employees were indicted on charges of conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud as part of the ongoing DOJ investigation. In April 2019, the indictment was superseded with an indictment against those two former employees as well as the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer. In the superseding indictment, Count I alleges that all defendants engaged in conspiracy to fraudulently influence accountants and make false entries in a public company’s books, records and accounts. Counts II-V allege specific acts by all defendants to fraudulently influence accountants. Counts VI through IX allege specific acts by all defendants to falsify entries in a public company’s books, records, and accounts. Count X alleges that all defendants engaged in conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud. Counts XI - XIII allege specific acts by all defendants of securities fraud. Counts XIV - XVII allege specific acts by all defendants of wire fraud. Count XVIII alleges bank fraud by the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer. Count XIX alleges securities fraud by one of the former employees. Additionally, in April 2019, the SEC filed suit against the same three former employees. The SEC listed the Company as an uncharged related party. Counts I-V allege that all defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the Company’s financial results. In particular, Count I alleges that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(a) and (c). Count II alleges that the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer and one of the former employees violated Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act. Count III alleges the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. And Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b). Count IV alleges that the two former employees aided and abetted the Company’s violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10-5(b). Count V alleges that the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer and one of the former employees violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act. Count VI alleges that one of the former employees engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(a) and (c). Counts VII alleges that all defendants engaged in aiding and abetting the Company’s reporting violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. Count VIII alleges that all defendants engaged in aiding and abetting the Company’s record-keeping violations of Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act. Count IX alleges that the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer engaged in aiding and abetting the Company’s record-keeping violations of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act. Count X alleges that all defendants engaged in falsification of records and circumvention of controls in violation of Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1. Count XI alleges that all defendants engaged in false statements to accountants in violation of Rule 13b2-2 of the Exchange Act. Count XIII alleges that the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer engaged in certification violations of rule 3a-14 of the Exchange Act. Count XIII alleges that uncharged party the Company violated (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5; (ii) Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13; and (iii) Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act. It further alleges that the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer acts subject him to control person liability for these violations. Count XIV alleges violation of Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 against the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer. The Company is cooperating fully with the joint DOJ and SEC investigation. Even though the Company is not named in this investigation, it has an obligation to indemnify the former employees and directors. However, given the status of this matter, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the potential costs or range of costs at this time. Any costs will be the responsibility of the Company as it has exhausted all of its insurance coverage for costs related to legal actions as part of the restatement.

. Commitments and Contingencies

Auto, Workers Compensation, and General Liability Reserves

In the ordinary course of business, the Company is a defendant in several legal proceedings arising out of the conduct of its business. These proceedings include claims for property damage or personal injury incurred in connection with the Company’s services. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate disposition of these proceedings, the Company does not believe, based upon the information available at this time, that these property damage or personal injury claims, in the aggregate, will have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements. The Company maintains insurance for auto liability, general liability, and cargo claims. The Company maintains an aggregate of $100 million of auto liability and general liability insurance. The Company maintains auto liability insurance coverage for claims in excess of $1.0 million per occurrence and cargo coverage for claims in excess of $100,000 per occurrence. The Company is self-insured up to $1.0 million per occurrence for workers compensation. The Company believes it has adequate insurance to cover losses in excess of the self-insured and deductible amounts. As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the Company had reserves for estimated uninsured losses of $28.0 million and $26.8 million, respectively, included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.

General Litigation Proceedings

Jeffrey Cox and David Chidester filed a complaint against certain of the Company’s 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 the Company’s 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. The Company's position is that this contingent purchase obligation is subject to offset for certain indemnification claims owed to the Company by the plaintiffs ranging from approximately $0.3 million to $1.0 million. Accordingly, the Company has recorded a contingent purchase obligation liability of $1.8 million in accrued expenses and other current liabilities. The Company intends to pursue indemnification and other claims as it relates to the Central Cal Matter and other related matters involving these plaintiffs. In February 2018, Plaintiff David Chidester agreed to dismiss his employment-related claims from the Los Angeles Superior Court matter, while Plaintiff Jeffrey Cox transferred his employment claims from Los Angeles Superior Court to the related employment case pending in the Eastern District of California. The parties are proceeding with discovery and the consolidated case is currently set for trial on November 5, 2019.

The Company received a letter dated April 17, 2018 from legal counsel representing Warren Communications News, Inc. (“Warren”) in which Warren made certain allegations against the Company of copyright infringement concerning an electronic newsletter published by Warren (the “Warren Matter”). Specifically, Warren alleged that an employee of the Company had, for several years, forwarded that electronic newsletter to third parties in violation of corresponding subscription agreements. After discussions with Warren, the Company received a second letter dated July 30, 2018 in which counsel for Warren offered to settle its claim for a monetary payment by the Company. The Company subsequently sent a counter-offer to Warren, which was rejected. Mediation is set for June 17, 2019.

In addition to the legal proceeding described above, the Company is 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 the Company alleging that the Company violated various California labor laws. In 2017 and 2018, the Company reached settlement agreements on a number of these labor related lawsuits and administrative actions. The Company paid approximately $9.2 million relating to these settlements during the three months ended March 31, 2019. As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the Company had a liability for settlements, litigation, and defense costs related to these labor matters, the Central Cal Matter and the Warren Matter of $1.6 million and $10.8 million, respectively, which are included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.

In December 2018, a class action lawsuit was brought against the Company 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. The Company is currently determining the effects of this lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend against such claims; however, there can be no assurance that it will be able to prevail. In light of the relatively early stage of the proceedings, the Company is unable to predict the potential costs or range of costs at this time.

Securities Litigation Proceedings

Following the Company's press release on January 30, 2017, three putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company and its former officers, Mark A. DiBlasi and Peter R. Armbruster. On May 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions under the caption In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144), and appointed Public Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 12, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed the Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”) on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between March 14, 2013 and January 30, 2017, inclusive. The CAC alleges (i) the Company and Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and (ii) Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster, the Company’s former Chairman Scott Rued, HCI Equity Partners, L.L.C., and HCI Equity Management, L.P. violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making or causing to be made materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts, regarding (a) the accuracy of the Company’s financial statements; (b) the Company’s true earnings and expenses; (c) the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and controls over financial reporting; (d) the true nature and depth of financial risk associated with the Company’s tractor lease guaranty program; (e) the Company’s leverage ratios and compliance with its credit facilities; and (f) the value of the goodwill the Company carried on its balance sheet. The CAC seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. On November 19, 2018, the parties entered into a binding term sheet agreeing to settle the action for $20 million, $17.9 million of which will be funded by the Company's D&O carriers ($4.8 million of which is by way of a pass through of the D&O carriers’ payment to the Company in connection with the settlement of the Federal Derivative Action described below). The settlement is conditioned on a settlement of the Federal Derivative Action described below, dismissal of the State Derivative Action described below, and final court approval of the settlements in this action and in the Federal Derivative Action.The parties have submitted a Stipulation of Settlement to the Court for preliminary approval.

On May 25, 2017, Richard Flanagan filed a complaint alleging derivative claims on the Company's behalf in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin (Case No. 17-cv-004401) against Scott Rued, Mark DiBlasi, Christopher Doerr, John Kennedy, III, Brian Murray, James Staley, Curtis Stoelting, William Urkiel, Judith Vijums, Michael Ward, Chad Utrup, Ivor Evans, Peter Armbruster, and Brian van Helden (the “State Derivative Action”). Count I of the complaint alleges the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by “knowingly failing to ensure that the Company implemented and maintained adequate internal controls over its accounting and financial reporting functions,” and seeks unspecified damages. Count II of the complaint alleges the Officer Defendants DiBlasi, Armbruster, and van Helden received substantial performance-based compensation and bonuses for fiscal year 2014 that should be disgorged. The action has been stayed pending the District Court’s approval of the proposed settlement of the Federal Derivative Action, following which the defendants would move to dismiss this action as moot. While the case was stayed, the plaintiff obtained permission to file an amended complaint adding claims against two former Company employees: Bret Naggs and Mark Wogsland.

On June 28, 2017, Jesse Kent filed a complaint alleging derivative claims on the Company's behalf and class action claims in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On December 22, 2017, Chester County Employees Retirement Fund filed a complaint alleging derivative claims on the Company's behalf in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On March 21, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the Kent and Chester County actions under the caption Kent v. Stoelting et al (Case No. 17-cv-00893) (the “Federal Derivative Action”). On March 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed their Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint alleging claims on behalf of the Company against Peter Armbruster, Mark DiBlasi, Scott Dobak, Christopher Doerr, Ivor Evans, Brian van Helden, John Kennedy III, Ralph Kittle, Brian Murray, Scott Rued, James Staley, Curtis Stoelting, William Urkiel, Chad Utrup, Judith Vijums, and Michael Ward. Count I alleges that several of the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 based upon alleged misrepresentations and omissions in several of the Company’s proxy statements. Count II alleges that all the defendants breached their fiduciary duty. Count III alleges that all the defendants wasted corporate assets. Count IV alleges that certain of the defendants were unjustly enriched. The Complaint seeks monetary damages, improvements to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, an accounting from defendants of the damages allegedly caused by them and the improper amounts the defendants allegedly obtained, and punitive damages. The parties have submitted a Stipulation of Settlement to the Court for preliminary approval, which provides for certain corporate governance changes and a $6.9 million payment, $4.8 million of which will be paid by the Company’s D&O carriers into an escrow account to be used by the Company to settle the class action described above and $2.1 million of which will be paid by the Company’s D&O carriers to cover plaintiffs attorney’s fees and expenses.

Given the status of the matters above, the Company concluded in the third quarter of 2018 that a liability is probable and recorded the estimated loss of $22 million which is recorded within accrued expenses and other current liabilities and a corresponding insurance reimbursement receivable of $20 million which is recorded in prepaid expenses and other current assets for all periods presented.

In addition, subsequent to the Company's announcement that certain previously filed financial statements should not be relied upon, the Company was contacted by the SEC, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The DOJ and Division of Enforcement of the SEC have commenced investigations into the events giving rise to the restatement. The Company has received formal requests for documents and other information. In June 2018, two of the Company's former employees were indicted on charges of conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud as part of the ongoing DOJ investigation. In April 2019, the indictment was superseded with an indictment against those two former employees as well as the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer. In the superseding indictment, Count I alleges that all defendants engaged in conspiracy to fraudulently influence accountants and make false entries in a public company’s books, records and accounts. Counts II-V allege specific acts by all defendants to fraudulently influence accountants. Counts VI through IX allege specific acts by all defendants to falsify entries in a public company’s books, records, and accounts. Count X alleges that all defendants engaged in conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud. Counts XI - XIII allege specific acts by all defendants of securities fraud. Counts XIV - XVII allege specific acts by all defendants of wire fraud. Count XVIII alleges bank fraud by the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer. Count XIX alleges securities fraud by one of the former employees.

Additionally, in April 2019, the SEC filed suit against the same three former employees. The SEC listed the Company as an uncharged related party. Counts I-V allege that all defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the Company’s financial results. In particular, Count I alleges that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(a) and (c). Count II alleges that the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer and one of the former employees violated Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act. Count III alleges the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. And Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b). Count IV alleges that the two former employees aided and abetted the Company’s violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10-5(b). Count V alleges that the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer and one of the former employees violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act. Count VI alleges that one of the former employees engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(a) and (c). Counts VII alleges that all defendants engaged in aiding and abetting the Company’s reporting violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. Count VIII alleges that all defendants engaged in aiding and abetting the Company’s record-keeping violations of Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act. Count IX alleges that the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer engaged in aiding and abetting the Company’s record-keeping violations of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act. Count X alleges that all defendants engaged in falsification of records and circumvention of controls in violation of Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1. Count XI alleges that all defendants engaged in false statements to accountants in violation of Rule 13b2-2 of the Exchange Act. Count XIII alleges that the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer engaged in certification violations of rule 3a-14 of the Exchange Act. Count XIII alleges that uncharged party the Company violated (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5; (ii) Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13; and (iii) Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act. It further alleges that the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer acts subject him to control person liability for these violations. Count XIV alleges violation of Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 against the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer.

The Company is cooperating fully with the joint DOJ and SEC investigation. Even though the Company is not named in this investigation, it has an obligation to indemnify the former employees and directors. However, given the status of this matter, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the potential costs or range of costs at this time. Any costs will be the responsibility of the Company as it has exhausted all of its insurance coverage for costs related to legal actions as part of the restatement.