Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies.
Commitments and Contingencies	11. Commitments and Contingencies The Company is party to certain legal proceedings incidental to its business. We record a liability when we believe that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If we determine that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, we will disclose them in this footnote. 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 “California Wage and Hour Class Action Litigation”). 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. The Court granted the plaintiff’s revised Motion for Class Certification, and the certified class consisted of all employee drivers who resided in California and who have driven in the State of California on behalf of U.S. Xpress, Inc. at any time since December 23, 2011. The case alleged 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 sought a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties, injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. On February 10, 2023, the parties reached an agreement to settle the California Wage and Hour Class Action Litigation in the amount of $4.7 million, exclusive of employer-side taxes. We estimate the that the employer’s side FICA tax will amount to approximately $0.1 million, depending on what portion of the settlement fund is allocated to wages. 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”). 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. On April 29, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification, which the court has not decided. 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. 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 presiding over the New York State Case dismissed the case, and on January 13, 2022, the court entered a motion denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. The parties have reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in the Federal Court Cases, which settlement is dependent on the parties being able to agree on a stipulation of settlement, the settlement releasing the claims alleged in the Tennessee State Court Cases, and the court granting preliminary and final approval of the settlement. The monetary component of the settlement in principle is the payment of $13.0 million by the applicable insurance carriers. Stockholder Derivative Action On June 7, 2019, a stockholder derivative lawsuit (the “Stockholder Derivative Action”) 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. Based on the current settlement discussions, we expect that the Stockholder Derivative Action will be settled with an agreement to adopt certain governance policies, not the payment of monetary damages. If the parties are able to agree on governance policies, it is expected that plaintiff’s counsel would then propose an amount of attorney’s fees and we would commence negotiations on attorneys’ fees to be paid to plaintiff’s counsel. Any settlement reached would be subject to preliminary and final approval by the court. The Company has letters of credit of $33.3 million outstanding as of December 31, 2022. The letters of credit are maintained primarily to support the Company’s insurance program. The Company had cancelable commitments outstanding at December 31, 2022 to acquire revenue and other equipment, terminal improvements for approximately $132.0 million in 2023, software licenses for approximately $2.5 million in each year for 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026. These purchase commitments are expected to be financed by operating leases, long-term debt, proceeds from sales of existing equipment, and cash flows from operations.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

11. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is party to certain legal proceedings incidental to its business. We record a liability when we believe that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If we determine that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, we will disclose them in this footnote.

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 “California Wage and Hour Class Action Litigation”). 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. The Court granted the plaintiff’s revised Motion for Class Certification, and the certified class consisted of all employee drivers who resided in California and who have driven in the State of California on behalf of U.S. Xpress, Inc. at any time since December 23, 2011. The case alleged 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 sought a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties, injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On February 10, 2023, the parties reached an agreement to settle the California Wage and Hour Class Action Litigation in the amount of $4.7 million, exclusive of employer-side taxes. We estimate the that the employer’s side FICA tax will amount to approximately $0.1 million, depending on what portion of the settlement fund is allocated to wages.

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”).

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. On April 29, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification, which the court has not decided.

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.

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 presiding over the New York State Case dismissed the case, and on January 13, 2022, the court entered a motion denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

The parties have reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in the Federal Court Cases, which settlement is dependent on the parties being able to agree on a stipulation of settlement, the settlement releasing the claims alleged in the Tennessee State Court Cases, and the court granting preliminary and final approval of the settlement. The monetary component of the settlement in principle is the payment of $13.0 million by the applicable insurance carriers.

Stockholder Derivative Action

On June 7, 2019, a stockholder derivative lawsuit (the “Stockholder Derivative Action”) 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.

Based on the current settlement discussions, we expect that the Stockholder Derivative Action will be settled with an agreement to adopt certain governance policies, not the payment of monetary damages. If the parties are able to agree on governance policies, it is expected that plaintiff’s counsel would then propose an amount of attorney’s fees and we would commence negotiations on attorneys’ fees to be paid to plaintiff’s counsel. Any settlement reached would be subject to preliminary and final approval by the court.

The Company has letters of credit of $33.3 million outstanding as of December 31, 2022. The letters of credit are maintained primarily to support the Company’s insurance program.

The Company had cancelable commitments outstanding at December 31, 2022 to acquire revenue and other equipment, terminal improvements for approximately $132.0 million in 2023, software licenses for approximately $2.5 million in each year for 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026. These purchase commitments are expected to be financed by operating leases, long-term debt, proceeds from sales of existing equipment, and cash flows from operations.