XML 39 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.3.1.900
Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Feb. 29, 2016
Loss Contingency [Abstract]  
Contingencies

(8) Contingencies

Wage-and-Hour. We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that they were forced to work “off the clock,” were not paid overtime or were not provided work breaks or other benefits. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. We do not believe that a material loss is reasonably possible with respect to any of these matters.

Independent Contractor— Lawsuits and State Administrative Proceedings.  FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits (including 25 that have been certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). In sum, the court ruled on our summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a determination with respect to the correctness of the district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit were stayed.

On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20 factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground requested that each of those cases be separately briefed given the potential differences in the applicable state law from that in Kansas. On July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued an order and opinion confirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, concluding that the class members are employees, not independent contractors. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit referred the other 19 cases to a representative of the court for purposes of setting a case management conference to address briefing and argument for those cases.

During the second quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case. In the second quarter of 2016 the Kansas case settled, and we increased the accrual to the amount of the settlement. The settlement will require court approval.

During the third quarter of 2016, we reached agreements in principle to settle all of the 19 cases on appeal in the multidistrict independent contractor litigation. All of these settlements require court approval. We recognized a liability for the expected loss (net of recognized insurance recovery) related to these cases and certain other pending independent-contractor-related proceedings of $204 million.

The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight certified class actions back to the district courts where they were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three of these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received court approval. The cases in Arkansas and Florida settled in the second quarter of 2016, and we established an accrual in each of these cases for the amount of the settlement. The settlements are subject to court approval. On January 13, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the settlement of the Florida case and set a fairness hearing for July 15, 2016. On January 29, 2016, the parties filed their motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in the Arkansas case.

Two cases in Oregon and one in California were appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court reversed the district court decisions and held that the plaintiffs in California and Oregon were employees as a matter of law and remanded the cases to their respective district courts for further proceedings. In the first quarter of 2015, we recognized an accrual for the then-estimated probable loss in those cases.

In June 2015, the parties in the California case reached an agreement to settle the matter for $228 million, and in the fourth quarter of 2015 we increased the accrual to that amount. The court has scheduled a final approval hearing regarding the settlement for April 7, 2016.

The two cases in Oregon were consolidated with a non-multidistrict litigation independent contractor case in Oregon. The three cases collectively settled in the second quarter of 2016, and we increased the accrual in these cases to the amount of the settlement. The settlement is subject to court approval.

In addition, we are defending contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation. These cases are in varying stages of litigation. For these cases, we do not expect to incur a material loss in these matters; however, it is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be material. In these cases, we continue to evaluate what facts may arise in the course of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may render and how these facts and rulings might impact FedEx Ground's loss. For a number of reasons, we are not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in these cases. The number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain, as they are dependent on how the class of full-time drivers is defined and how many individuals will qualify based on whatever criteria may be established. In addition, the parties have conducted only very limited discovery into damages in certain of these cases, which could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff and be dependent on evidence pertaining to individual plaintiffs, which has yet to be produced in the cases. Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the court, including on the merits of the claims, on FedEx Ground's defenses, and on evidentiary issues. As a consequence of these factors, as well as others that are specific to these cases, we are not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. We do not believe that a material loss is probable in these matters.

Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's independent contractors, could, among other things, entitle certain of our owner-operators and their drivers to the reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for FedEx Ground. We believe that FedEx Ground's owner-operators are properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the company's independent contractors.

City and State of New York Cigarette Suit. The City of New York (“City”) and the State of New York (“State”) filed two related lawsuits against FedEx Ground in December 2013 and November 2014 arising from FedEx Ground's alleged shipments of cigarettes to New York residents in contravention of several statutes, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and New York's Public Health Law, as well as common law nuisance claims. The first lawsuit alleges that FedEx Ground provided delivery services on behalf of four shippers, none of which continues to ship in our network. The second lawsuit alleges that FedEx Ground provided delivery services on behalf of six additional shippers. In March 2015, the court ruled on our motion to dismiss in the first case, granting our motions to limit the applicable statute of limitations to four years and to dismiss a portion of the claims. The court, however, denied our motion to dismiss some of the claims, including the RICO claims. In July 2015, FedEx Ground filed a motion to dismiss in the second case and the court has not issued its ruling on this motion. The likelihood of loss is reasonably possible, but the amount of loss cannot be estimated at this stage of the litigation and we expect the amount of any loss to be immaterial.

Environmental Matters.  SEC regulations require disclosure of certain environmental matters when a governmental authority is a party to the proceedings and the proceedings involve potential monetary sanctions that management reasonably believes could exceed $100,000.

In February 2014, FedEx Ground received oral communications from District Attorneys' Offices (representing California's county environmental authorities) and the California Attorney General's Office (representing the California Division of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”)) that they were seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of the state's hazardous waste regulations. Specifically, the California environmental authorities alleged that FedEx Ground improperly generates and/or handles, stores and transports hazardous waste from its stations to its hubs in California. In April 2014, FedEx Ground filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the Director of the California DTSC and the County District Attorneys with whom we have been negotiating. In June 2014, the California Attorney General filed a complaint against FedEx Ground in Sacramento County Superior Court alleging violations by FedEx Ground as described above. The County District Attorneys filed a similar complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court in July 2014. The county and state authorities filed a motion to dismiss FedEx Ground's declaratory judgment action, and their motion was granted on January 22, 2015. FedEx Ground filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 23, 2015. FedEx Ground and the County District Attorneys reached an agreement to resolve all claims between them, and on August 10, 2015, they filed a negotiated final judgment in Sacramento County Superior Court that the court subsequently approved. In the fourth quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for the final judgment amount, which was immaterial. On November 19, 2015, FedEx Ground and the DTSC agreed to settle their dispute, subject to memorializing a consent judgment consistent with the terms FedEx Ground agreed upon with the District Attorneys. We established an accrual for the settlement amount in the second quarter of 2016. This amount was immaterial.

On January 14, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a Grand Jury Subpoena to FedEx Express relating to an asbestos matter previously investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On May 1, 2014, the DOJ informed us that it had determined to continue to pursue the matter as a criminal case, citing seven asbestos-related regulatory violations associated with removal of roof materials from a hangar in Puerto Rico during cleaning and repair activity, as well as violation of waste disposal requirements. Loss is reasonably possible; however, the amount of any loss is expected to be immaterial.

Department of Justice Indictment – Internet Pharmacy Shipments.  In the past, we received requests for information from the DOJ in the Northern District of California in connection with a criminal investigation relating to the transportation of packages for online pharmacies that may have shipped pharmaceuticals in violation of federal law. In July 2014, the DOJ filed a criminal indictment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in connection with the matter. A superseding indictment was filed in August 2014. The indictment alleges that FedEx Corporation, FedEx Express and FedEx Services, together with certain pharmacies, conspired to unlawfully distribute controlled substances, unlawfully distributed controlled substances and conspired to unlawfully distribute misbranded drugs. The superseding indictment adds conspiracy to launder money counts related to services provided to and payments from online pharmacies. We continue to believe that our employees have acted in good faith at all times and that we have not engaged in any illegal activities.

Accordingly, we will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter. If we are convicted, remedies could include fines, penalties, forfeiture and compliance conditions. Given the stage of this proceeding, we cannot estimate the amount or range of loss, if any; however, it is reasonably possible that it could be material if we are convicted.

Other Matters.  On June 30, 2014, we received a Statement of Objections from the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) addressed to FedEx Express France, formerly known as TATEX, regarding an investigation by the FCA into anticompetitive behavior that is alleged to have occurred primarily in the framework of trade association meetings that included the former general managers of TATEX prior to our acquisition of that company in July 2012. In September 2014, FedEx Express France submitted its observations in response to the Statement of Objections to the FCA. In April 2015, the FCA issued a report responding to the observations submitted by all companies involved in the investigation. We submitted an answer to the FCA's report in early July. In the fourth quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for the estimated probable loss. This amount was immaterial.

A hearing in this matter before the Board of the FCA occurred on September 30, 2015. On December 15, 2015, the FCA announced its decision and related fines against all companies involved in the investigation. FedEx Express France was fined €17 million. We did not appeal the FCA decision. In the third quarter of 2016, we increased the accrual to that amount ($19 million). We plan to pursue all available remedies against the sellers of TATEX to recover our losses in this matter.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (the “CBP”) previously notified FedEx Trade Networks that it would be reviewing certain customs entries made at U.S. ports from 2008 to December 2013. In November 2015, the CBP notified FedEx Trade Networks that it may be liable for $76 million to $210 million in estimated uncollected duties and merchandising processing fees. On January 4, 2016, FedEx Trade Networks submitted an offer of compromise to the CBP to resolve the company's potential liability from December 24, 2008 through January 4, 2016. On February 19, 2016, CBP informed FedEx Trade Networks that it accepted the offer of compromise, and we recognized a liability (net of recognized insurance recovery) in the amount of $69 million.

FedEx and its subsidiaries are subject to other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of their business. In the opinion of management, the aggregate liability, if any, with respect to these other actions will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.