Truck stop mogul says he didn't know of fuel-rebate issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Embattled truck stop CEO and Cleveland Browns owner James Haslam took the blame for a lack of oversight in his fuel-sales rebate program, which is the subject of a federal investigation and multiple class-action lawsuits, during a speech Thursday morning at the Hilton Indianapolis Hotel.

Haslam’s company, Pilot Flying J of Knoxville, Tenn., has doubled in size in the past five years but didn’t have a chief compliance officer, he told the audience of trucking industry executives gathered in downtown Indianapolis for a conference presented by locally based law firm Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary.

“I take the blame for not having that,” Haslam said, adding that hiring a compliance chief is one of the steps he will take to rectify the situation, in which he said it appears—so far—that about 250 firms may have been short-changed on their monthly rebates. Those rebates can add up to tens of thousands of dollars.

The rebate scheme affects small trucking firms, in which the monthly discount is manually calculated and passed along to drivers who own their own trucks. Out of Pilot Flying J’s 5,000 customers, about 400 were in the manual rebate program, Haslam said. He plans to bring that program to an end.

Asked whether he had any personal knowledge of the rebate scheme, Haslam said, “Absolutely not.” Haslam said his audit team is scouring accounts and reimbursing trucking companies with interest.

The fact that Haslam hasn’t been muzzled by his legal advisors is unusual, Scopelitis partner Greg Feary said. “That would be the standard approach, but not his approach.”

The Scopelitis firm represents trucking companies in a variety of matters, but so far sees no reason to pursue a lawsuit against Pilot Flying J.

The biennial Scopelitis Transportation Seminar draws about 400 industry executives, giving Haslam a platform to not only defend himself but to remind clients of what Pilot Flying J means to the industry, which has a large presence in Indianapolis.

Pilot Flying J extends about $500 million a month in interest-free credit to trucking firms, Haslam said. The company is spending $75 million to renovate showers, restrooms and fuel lanes at its more than 500 stops across the United States and Canada, he said.

Montana trucking CEO Ray Kuntz said his 700-truck firm, Watkins & Shepard Trucking Inc., was not shorted, and he’s glad Pilot Flying J is still in business. “I was very impressed with the honesty,” he said after Haslam’s talk, during which he answered select, pre-screened questions.

Pilot Flying J is a “very integral part to both our company and the industry,” Kuntz said. “Hopefully he can restore the trust he says he’s going to try to do.”

Haslam’s company, Pilot, bought the Flying J travel centers out of bankruptcy in 2010, creating the largest chain of truck stops in the country.


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.