Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Feb. 28, 2018
Legal Proceedings
Legal Proceedings	Note 16 — Legal Proceedings We are not a party to any material pending legal proceeding (including any governmental or environmental proceeding) other than routine litigation incidental to our business except for the following: DynCorp International LLC v. AAR Airlift Group, Inc. On September 5, 2015, DynCorp International LLC (“DynCorp”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division (the “District Court”), accusing AAR Airlift Group, Inc. (“AAR Airlift”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AAR CORP., of misappropriation of DynCorp information, including trade secrets, and other related allegations. DynCorp’s complaint, which sought damages in an unspecified amount and a preliminary injunction, alleged that AAR Airlift engaged in this conduct in connection with the submission of proposals in response to the solicitation issued by the U.S. Department of State (“DOS”) Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Office of Aviation (“INL/A”) in support of the Worldwide Aviation Support Services program (“INL/A WASS”). The INL/A WASS contract was subsequently awarded to AAR Airlift on September 1, 2016. The District Court denied DynCorp’s preliminary injunction motion, and on October 19, 2015, DynCorp filed an amended complaint with the District Court. On January 14, 2016, the District Court granted AAR Airlift’s motion to dismiss DynCorp’s amended complaint. On February 2, 2016, DynCorp appealed the District Court’s order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”). On November 21, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit reversed in part the District Court’s dismissal of the amended complaint and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The District Court set a discovery schedule that was to end on September 1, 2017 and a trial date of April 2, 2018. On June 16, 2017, the District Court granted AAR Airlift’s motion to stay the legal proceeding against AAR Airlift. The stay was to remain in effect until the earlier of (a) October 31, 2017 or (b) the entry of a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”), on DynCorp’s protest of the contract award to AAR Airlift. The District Court’s stay immediately halted all discovery and other activity in the DynCorp lawsuit. On October 31, 2017, the COFC denied DynCorp’s protest of the DOS award to AAR Airlift. Following the COFC decision, the Department of State lifted the voluntary stay that had been in place on the INL/A WASS contract, and since that time it has issued several task orders to AAR Airlift in order to transition the INL/A WASS program to AAR Airlift. On November 29, 2017, the District Court granted AAR Airlift’s motion to stay discovery in this lawsuit pending the District Court’s resolution of AAR Airlift’s motion for summary judgment. The District Court’s decision effectively extended the stay that was previously in effect. On December 1, 2017, AAR Airlift filed its motion for summary judgment with the District Court. This motion maintains that DynCorp’s claims fail as a matter of law because DynCorp suffered no damages attributable to any alleged conduct of AAR Airlift; rather, as determined by the COFC, DynCorp was deemed ineligible for the INL/A WASS contract on account of its own actions. On January 31, 2018, AAR Airlift and DynCorp filed a joint notice of settlement, advising the District Court that they had reached an agreement in principle to resolve DynCorp’s lawsuit and that they expected to file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice within 14 days (meaning that DynCorp may not file its claims again). On February 1, 2018, the District Court entered an order dismissing the DynCorp lawsuit without prejudice subject to the right of any party within 60 days to move the court for the purpose of entering a stipulated form of a final order or judgment or, on good cause shown, to reopen the case for further proceedings. On March 16, 2018, however, DynCorp moved to reopen the case for further proceedings, stating that the parties did not have a meeting of the minds on a potential settlement. On March 19, 2018, AAR filed a response to DynCorp’s motion, clarifying that the parties did reach an agreement to settle the case and requesting that the court reopen the case for the limited purpose of allowing AAR Airlift to file a motion to enforce the settlement agreement reached between the parties and to dismiss the DynCorp lawsuit with prejudice.

Note 16 — Legal Proceedings

We are not a party to any material pending legal proceeding (including any governmental or environmental proceeding) other than routine litigation incidental to our business except for the following:

DynCorp International LLC v. AAR Airlift Group, Inc.

On September 5, 2015, DynCorp International LLC (“DynCorp”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division (the “District Court”), accusing AAR Airlift Group, Inc. (“AAR Airlift”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AAR CORP., of misappropriation of DynCorp information, including trade secrets, and other related allegations. DynCorp’s complaint, which sought damages in an unspecified amount and a preliminary injunction, alleged that AAR Airlift engaged in this conduct in connection with the submission of proposals in response to the solicitation issued by the U.S. Department of State (“DOS”) Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Office of Aviation (“INL/A”) in support of the Worldwide Aviation Support Services program (“INL/A WASS”). The INL/A WASS contract was subsequently awarded to AAR Airlift on September 1, 2016.

The District Court denied DynCorp’s preliminary injunction motion, and on October 19, 2015, DynCorp filed an amended complaint with the District Court. On January 14, 2016, the District Court granted AAR Airlift’s motion to dismiss DynCorp’s amended complaint. On February 2, 2016, DynCorp appealed the District Court’s order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”).

On November 21, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit reversed in part the District Court’s dismissal of the amended complaint and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The District Court set a discovery schedule that was to end on September 1, 2017 and a trial date of April 2, 2018.

On June 16, 2017, the District Court granted AAR Airlift’s motion to stay the legal proceeding against AAR Airlift. The stay was to remain in effect until the earlier of (a) October 31, 2017 or (b) the entry of a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”), on DynCorp’s protest of the contract award to AAR Airlift. The District Court’s stay immediately halted all discovery and other activity in the DynCorp lawsuit.

On October 31, 2017, the COFC denied DynCorp’s protest of the DOS award to AAR Airlift. Following the COFC decision, the Department of State lifted the voluntary stay that had been in place on the INL/A WASS contract, and since that time it has issued several task orders to AAR Airlift in order to transition the INL/A WASS program to AAR Airlift.

On November 29, 2017, the District Court granted AAR Airlift’s motion to stay discovery in this lawsuit pending the District Court’s resolution of AAR Airlift’s motion for summary judgment. The District Court’s decision effectively extended the stay that was previously in effect.

On December 1, 2017, AAR Airlift filed its motion for summary judgment with the District Court. This motion maintains that DynCorp’s claims fail as a matter of law because DynCorp suffered no damages attributable to any alleged conduct of AAR Airlift; rather, as determined by the COFC, DynCorp was deemed ineligible for the INL/A WASS contract on account of its own actions.

On January 31, 2018, AAR Airlift and DynCorp filed a joint notice of settlement, advising the District Court that they had reached an agreement in principle to resolve DynCorp’s lawsuit and that they expected to file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice within 14 days (meaning that DynCorp may not file its claims again).

On February 1, 2018, the District Court entered an order dismissing the DynCorp lawsuit without prejudice subject to the right of any party within 60 days to move the court for the purpose of entering a stipulated form of a final order or judgment or, on good cause shown, to reopen the case for further proceedings.

On March 16, 2018, however, DynCorp moved to reopen the case for further proceedings, stating that the parties did not have a meeting of the minds on a potential settlement. On March 19, 2018, AAR filed a response to DynCorp’s motion, clarifying that the parties did reach an agreement to settle the case and requesting that the court reopen the case for the limited purpose of allowing AAR Airlift to file a motion to enforce the settlement agreement reached between the parties and to dismiss the DynCorp lawsuit with prejudice.