Originally Posted by
dgcpaphd
In this world we have to learn to connect the dots which many people fail to do.
The litigation was NOT incident to UA's ordinary course of business. The litigation is because UA chose to intentionally breach written "lifetime" promises made to a sub-group in the Mileage Plus program that achieved a goal that yielded lifetime benefits (Million-Mile Program).
You're making a conclusory statement here. This is precisely the key issue that is being litigated right now. They dispute that which you claim to be fact, and they're certainly not going to make a statement in SEC filing that implies otherwise.
However, when connecting the dots, you are ignoring the fact that UA went far past the ordinary course of UA's business when it chose, intentionally, to breach and ignore written promises made to a group of fliers that had complied with the requirements to make million-mile status and earn lifetime benefits.
See above.
Can you reasonably explain (with honesty) how the following screen shot, that was intentionally and knowingly breached by UA is "in the course of UA's business" unless UA's course of business includes being dishonest and in the business of intentionally breaching contracts?
Personally, I think they did breach a contract, but that is a matter for the court and/or a jury to determine. They're paying litigators a bunch o'money to defend their view that there was no contract here, and since there has been no summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, at least as of this time there still remains a bona fide question as to whether there was a contract.
Accordingly, their disclosure seems reasonable, IME doing this sort of thing.
The standard wording of UA's note altered to a point that I feel that UA is not optimistic in connection with the eventual outcome of the case.
I have not gone back and reviewed their prior filings to see how it has changed. If it has changed, and assuming
arguendo
that it has changed in a way that is intended to disclose that the likelihood of an adverse outcome of some litigation has increased, how do we know that it is referring to the MM litigation?
Greg