Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

The Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")) designed to provide reasonable assurance that the information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission's rules and forms. These include controls and procedures designed to ensure that this information is accumulated and communicated to the Company's management, including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Management, with the participation of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures as of June 30, 2022. Based on this evaluation, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that the Company's disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of June 30, 2022, at the reasonable assurance level.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) of the Exchange Act) during the quarter ended June 30, 2022, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

On June 30, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") to the Company. The CID sought information and documents about the Company’s capacity from January 2010 to the date of the CID, 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. The Company is cooperating fully with the DOJ CID and the state inquiry.

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 were 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. 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. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to restrict capacity from 2009 to present. The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses. On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, which the Court denied on October 28, 2016. On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to settle these cases with a proposed class of all persons who purchased domestic airline transportation services from July 1, 2011, to the date of the settlement. The Company agreed to pay $15 million and to provide certain cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in the settlement agreement. After notice was provided to the proposed settlement class and the Court held a fairness hearing the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on May 9, 2019. On June 10, 2019, certain objectors filed notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which the Court dismissed on July 9, 2021, for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order approving the settlements was not a final appealable order. The case is continuing as to the remaining defendants. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.

On July 11, 2019, a complaint alleging violations of federal and state laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against Boeing and the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman ("Sherman Complaint"). The complaint alleges that Boeing and the Company colluded to conceal defects with the Boeing 737 MAX ("MAX") aircraft in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO") and also asserts related state law claims based upon the same alleged facts. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes of customers who purchased tickets for air travel from either the Company or American Airlines between August 29, 2017, and March 13, 2019. The complaint generally seeks money damages, equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and other costs. On September 13, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and to strike certain class allegations. Boeing also moved to dismiss. On February 14, 2020, the trial court issued a ruling that granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the complaint. The trial court order, among other things: (i) dismissed without prejudice various state law claims that the plaintiffs abandoned in response to the motions, (ii) dismissed with prejudice the remaining state law claims, including fraud by concealment, fraud by misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation on the grounds that federal law preempts those claims, and (iii) found that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue one of the plaintiffs’ theories of RICO injury. The order denied the motion to dismiss with respect to two RICO claims premised upon a second theory of RICO injury and denied the motion to strike the class allegations at the pleadings stage. On September 3, 2021, the trial court issued an order under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) certifying four classes of persons associated with ticket purchases for flights during the period of August 29, 2017, through March 13, 2019, comprised of (i) those who purchased tickets (without being reimbursed) for flights on Southwest Airlines during the class period, except for those whose flights were solely on routes where, at the time of the ticket

purchase(s), a MAX plane was not scheduled for use (or actually used) and had not previously been used, (ii) those who reimbursed a Southwest Airlines ticket purchaser and thus bore the economic burden for a Southwest Airlines ticket for a flight meeting the preceding criteria set forth in (i) above, (iii) those who purchased tickets (without being reimbursed) for flights on American Airlines during the class period, except for those whose flights were solely on routes where, at the time of ticket purchase(s), a MAX plane was not scheduled for use (or actually used) and had not previously been used, and (iv) those who reimbursed an American Airlines ticket purchaser and thus bore the economic burden for an American Airlines ticket for a flight meeting the preceding criteria set forth in (iii) above. On September 17, 2021, the Company filed a petition for permission immediately to appeal the class certification ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Boeing also filed such a petition. Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the petitions on September 27, 2021. On September 30, 2021, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Company (and Boeing) permission to appeal the class certification ruling. On December 22, 2021, in response to a motion to stay the trial court proceedings filed by the Company and Boeing, the Fifth Circuit stayed all proceedings, including the pursuit of any discovery, in the trial court pending disposition of the class certification appeal by the Fifth Circuit. Following full briefing on the merits of the appeal, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument of the appeal on July 5, 2022, and the Company is awaiting a decision from the Fifth Circuit. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing, believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit, and intends to continue vigorously defending itself in all respects.

On February 19, 2020, a complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas. A lead plaintiff has been appointed in the case, and an amended complaint was filed on July 2, 2020. The amended complaint seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between February 7, 2017, and January 29, 2020. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act and alleges that the Company made material misstatements to investors regarding the Company’s safety and maintenance practices and its compliance with federal regulations and requirements. The amended complaint generally seeks money damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and other costs. On August 17, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On October 1, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a reply on or about October 21, 2020, such that the motion is now fully briefed, although the parties have each supplemented their prior briefing with regard to more recent case holdings in other matters. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the amended complaint. The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

On June 22, 2020, a derivative action for breach of fiduciary duty was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas naming the members of the Company's Board of Directors as defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant (the "Derivative Action"). The plaintiff alleges unspecified damage to Company’s reputation, goodwill, and standing in the community, as well as damage from exposure to civil and regulatory liability and defense costs. According to the lawsuit, these damages arise from the Company’s alleged failure to comply with safety and record maintenance regulations and false statements in public filings regarding the Company’s safety practices. The plaintiff alleges the Board, in the absence of good faith, exhibited reckless disregard for its duties of oversight. On October 7, 2020, the Court entered an order staying and administratively closing the Derivative Action. The plaintiff in the Derivative Action shall have the right to reopen the action following the resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss in the ongoing litigation brought under the federal securities laws or upon the occurrence of certain other conditions. The Board and Company deny all allegations of wrongdoing made in the Derivative Action.

On August 26, 2021, a complaint alleging breach of contract and seeking certification as a class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco. The complaint alleges that the Company breached its Contract of Carriage and other alleged agreements in connection with its use of the allegedly defective MAX aircraft manufactured by The Boeing Company. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes of customers who provided valuable consideration, whether in money or other form (e.g., voucher, miles/points, etc.), in exchange for a ticket for air transportation with the Company, which transportation took place between August 29, 2017, and March 13, 2019. The complaint generally seeks money damages, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and other costs. On October 27, 2021, the Company filed a multi-faceted motion challenging the Complaint based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the existence of the prior-filed

Sherman Complaint on appeal in the Fifth Circuit, improper venue, and failure to state a claim, and seeking to have the complaint's class contentions stricken. That motion was fully briefed by both parties and was argued to a United States Magistrate Judge on June 27, 2022. On July 5, 2022, the Magistrate Judge granted the motion in part and ordered the case stayed until the issuance of the Fifth Circuit's opinion in the Sherman Complaint. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing, believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects.

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.