Originally Posted by
dgcpaphd
There is another sentence in the note that should not have been worded as it is. Clearly, the sentence makes the disclosure misleading when it states "- - incident to the ordinary course of business." One can hardly equate that a knowing and intentional breach of lifetime promises made to long-term customers was done "in the ordinary course of business." I guess Ernst and Young might have slipped on helping UA word that note/disclosure.
I'm pretty sure that's not how EY or UA would interpret their language, nor do I think yours is a reasonable interpretation. Changes to the terms, conditions and benefits of Mileage Plus are in the ordinary course of UA's business. This litigation was incident to that ordinary course of business.
Personally, I'm hoping we get benefits out of this litigation, but that goal is not served by unreasonable interpretations of UA's '34 Act disclosures.
Greg