IBJNews

FedEx wins reversal of jury's $66M award to ATA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

FedEx Corp. has won an appeal that overturns a $66 million verdict in favor of defunct Indianapolis airline ATA Airlines Inc.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago heard the appeal in November and issued the reversal Tuesday morning.

ATA initially won a jury verdict over the breach-of-contract case in October 2010. FedEx unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the U.S. District Court of Southern Indiana before taking it to the higher court.

ATA charged in its initial lawsuit that FedEx’s unexpected decision in January 2008 to drop it as a military-charter partner forced it into bankruptcy liquidation that spring. ATA had been flying military charters for more than two decades, and it said FedEx was legally obligated to keep it on board through at least September 2009.

The appeals court said ATA’s legal experts failed to prove the amount of damages suffered because of the breach of contract. The court said ATA may well have suffered some losses due to FedEx’s actions, but because there was “no reasonable confidence in the jury’s damages award,” the case should be reversed.

The case hinged on a September 2006 letter that described how business was to be divvied up through September 2009 between ATA and another airline that was part of the FedEx military-charter team.

FedEx argued that was not a legal contract because it didn’t address financial terms and other key issues. It noted the legal standard for an enforceable contract is “a meeting of the minds of the parties, in mutual assent to all essential terms.”

In a court filing, FedEx attorneys wrote, “Given the uncontroverted evidence and the relevant law … there is simply no reasonable basis in the record on which the jury could find that an agreement on just one term of FedEx Team membership was an enforceable contract for FedEx Team membership.”

FedEx balked at the size of the jury's award, noting that in fiscal 2007, ATA earned just $2.1 million from its military charter business.

The $66 million judgment was supposed to go to ATA's creditors, who are still owed millions in the company's Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • FedEx Case
    I find the need for a company, such as FedEx, to spend millions of dollars for legal fees, to reverse a questionable decision by a jury, beyond belief. How a vendor can claim damage for loss of business is beyond belief. Did anyone question this lawsuit to be considered "frivolous"?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

ADVERTISEMENT