NOTE 8.

Legal Matters

Robles

On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division) by Salvador Robles against our subsidiary, Comtrak Logistics, Inc., now known as Hub Group Trucking, Inc. Mr. Robles drove a truck for Hub Group Trucking in California, first as an independent contractor and then as an employee. The action brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former California-based truck drivers for Hub Group Trucking who were classified as independent contractors, from January 2009 to the present. The complaint alleges Hub Group Trucking has misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were employees. The complaint asserts various violations of the California Labor Code and claims that Hub Group Trucking has engaged in unfair competition practices. The complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages and attorney’s fees. In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add similar claims based on Mr. Robles’ status as an employed company driver. These additional claims are only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a putative class. In August 2013, the district court stayed proceedings in the case pending decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide whether the claims in two cases raising some similar claims should be dismissed on federal preemption grounds. In July 2014, the Court of Appeals ruled that the claims in those cases were not preempted.

The Company believes that the California independent contractor truck drivers were properly classified as independent contractors at all times. Nevertheless, because lawsuits are expensive, time-consuming and could interrupt our business operations, Hub Group Trucking decided to make settlement offers to individual drivers with respect to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, without admitting liability. As of September 30, 2015, 93% of the California drivers have accepted the settlement offers. In late 2014, Hub Group Trucking decided to convert its model from independent contractors to employee drivers in California.

On April 3, 2015, the Robles case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western Division) in Memphis. In May 2015, the plaintiffs in the Robles case filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) which names 334 current and former Hub Group Trucking drivers as “interested putative class members.” In addition to reasserting their existing claims, the SAC includes claims post-conversion, added two new plaintiffs and seeks a judicial declaration that the settlement agreements are unenforceable. In June 2015, Hub Group Trucking filed a motion to dismiss the SAC.

Private Attorneys General Act Action

On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs’ law firm in the Robles case filed a lawsuit in state court in San Bernardino County, California on behalf of 63 named Plaintiffs against Hub Group Trucking and five Hub employees. The lawsuit alleges claims similar to those being made in Robles and seeks monetary penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. Of the 63 named Plaintiffs, at least 58 of them previously accepted the settlement offers referenced above.

Lubinski

On September 12, 2014, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) by Christian Lubinski against Hub Group Trucking. The action was brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former owner-operators providing delivery services in Illinois for Hub Group Trucking. The complaint alleged Hub Group Trucking misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers are employees. The complaint alleged that Hub Group Trucking made illegal deductions from the drivers’ pay and failed to properly compensate the drivers for all hours worked, reimburse business expenses, pay employment taxes, and provide workers’ compensation and other employment benefits. The complaint asserted various violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act and claims that Hub Group Trucking was unjustly enriched. The complaint sought, among other things, monetary damages for the relevant statutory period and attorneys’ fees. On October 24, 2014, the Lubinski case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western Division), in Memphis. On September 22, 2015, the court granted Hub Group Trucking’s motion to dismiss Lubinski’s Illinois law claims with prejudice based on the contractual choice of law provision providing that Tennessee law governs. The court denied as moot Hub Group Trucking’s motion to dismiss based on federal preemption. On October 2, 2015, Lubinski appealed this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati.

We cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from the remaining unresolved claims in the above mentioned lawsuits.

We are a party to other litigation incident to our business, including claims for personal injury and/or property damage, bankruptcy preference claims, and claims regarding freight lost or damaged in transit, improperly shipped or improperly billed. Some of the lawsuits to which we are party are covered by insurance and are being defended by our insurance carriers. Some of the lawsuits are not covered by insurance and we defend those ourselves. We do not believe that the outcome of this litigation will have a materially adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.