Item 3. Legal Proceedings

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009. The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008. After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were consolidated before a single federal district court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees. On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed. The parties have submitted briefs on class certification, and the parties have filed motions to exclude the class certification opinions of each other’s expert. The parties engaged in extensive discovery, and discovery has now closed. On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining claims, but discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta delayed further briefing on summary judgment. On August 5, 2015, the Court entered an order granting class certification, which was vacated on August 17, 2015, to permit further briefing on class certification and AirTran’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert. Thereafter, the parties filed motions to exclude the opinions of the other parties’ experts. On January 8, 2016, the parties completed briefing on defendants’ motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and the motions to exclude the opinions of experts, and those motions have been submitted to the Court for decision. AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend vigorously any and all such allegations.

Also, on June 30, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) to the Company. The CID seeks information and documents about the Company’s capacity from January 2010 to the present including public statements and communications with third parties about capacity. In June 2015, the Company also received a letter from the Connecticut Attorney General requesting information about capacity; and on August 21, 2015, the Attorney General of the State of Ohio issued an investigative demand seeking information and documents about the Company’s capacity from December 2013 to the present. The Company is cooperating fully with the DOJ CID and these two state inquiries.

Further, on July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaints seek treble damages for periods that vary among the complaints, costs, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District Court in the District of Columbia. The Court has not yet entered a scheduling order establishing a date for defendants to respond to the complaints. The Company intends to vigorously defend these civil cases.

In addition, on July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in putative class action filed in British Columbia, Canada alleging that the Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines colluded to

restrict capacity and maintain higher fares for Canadian citizens traveling in the United States and for travel between the United States and Canada. Similar lawsuits were filed in Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. The time for the Company to respond to the complaints has not yet expired. The Company intends to vigorously defend these civil cases in Canada.

The Company is from time to time subject to various legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited to, examinations by the Internal Revenue Service.

The Company’s management does not expect that the outcome in any of its currently ongoing legal proceedings or the outcome of any proposed adjustments presented to date by the Internal Revenue Service, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flow.