Delta Airlines 2005 Annual Report Download - page 26

Table of Contents
pertinent to Delta include: (1) for the purpose of the Section 1 claim, a subclass of persons or entities who purchased from a defendant
or its agent a full fare, unrestricted ticket for travel on any of certain designated city pairs originating or terminating at Delta's Atlanta
or Cincinnati hubs, Northwest's hubs at Minneapolis, Detroit or Memphis, or US Airways' hubs at Pittsburgh or Charlotte, during the
period from June 11, 1995 to date; (2) for the purpose of the Section 2 claim as it relates to its Atlanta hub, a subclass of persons or
entities who purchased from Delta or its agent a full fare, unrestricted ticket for travel on any of certain designated city pairs
originating or terminating at its Atlanta hub during the same period; and (3) for the purpose of the Section 2 claim as it relates to its
Cincinnati hub, a subclass of persons or entities who purchased from Delta or its agent a full fare, unrestricted ticket for travel on any
of certain designated city pairs originating or terminating at its Cincinnati hub during the same period. The District Court
administratively closed this case on September 20, 2005 due to the bankruptcy proceedings of Delta, Northwest and US Airways. The
case is subject to reopening upon further action by the District Court.
Litigation Re September 11 Terrorist Attacks
Delta is a defendant in numerous lawsuits arising out of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It appears that the plaintiffs in
these actions are alleging that Delta and many other air carriers are jointly liable for damages resulting from the terrorist attacks based
on a theory of shared responsibility for passenger security screening at Logan, Washington Dulles International Airport and Newark
Liberty International Airport. These lawsuits, which are in preliminary stages, generally seek unspecified damages, including punitive
damages. Federal law limits the financial liability of any air carrier for compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the
September 11 terrorist attacks to no more than the limits of liability insurance coverage maintained by the air carrier. Because this
litigation was subject to the automatic stay imposed by our Chapter 11 proceedings, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits agreed to
stipulations that limit their recovery of any judgment solely to available insurance coverage in exchange for us agreeing to lift the
automatic stay. An order reflecting this stipulation has been entered by the Bankruptcy Court and our exposure in these lawsuits is
now limited to the deductible in our insurance policies.
Delta Family-Care Savings Plan Litigation
On September 3, 2004, a retired Delta employee filed a class action complaint (amended on March 16, 2005) in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Delta, certain current and former Delta officers and certain current and former Delta
directors on behalf of himself and other participants in the Delta Family-Care Savings Plan ("Savings Plan"). The amended complaint
alleges that the defendants were fiduciaries of the Savings Plan and, as such, breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA to the
plaintiff class by (1) allowing class members to direct their contributions under the Savings Plan to a fund invested in Delta common
stock; and (2) continuing to hold Delta's contributions to the Savings Plan in Delta's common and preferred stock. The amended
complaint seeks damages unspecified in amount, but equal to the total loss of value in the participants' accounts from September 2000
through September 2004 from the investment in Delta stock. Defendants deny that there was any breach of fiduciary duty, and have
moved to dismiss the complaint, which motion is pending before the District Court. The District Court has stayed the action against
Delta due to the bankruptcy filing, and we have filed an adversary proceeding with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to extend the stay as
to all defendants. The District Court is awaiting the results of that action before it further considers the motion to dismiss filed by the
individual defendants.
* * *
The antitrust litigation described above has been administratively closed by the court. Additionally, our exposure in the September
11 litigation has been limited as the result of a stipulation we entered into with the plaintiffs. In each of the cases described above in
which we are a defendant, we believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and, to the extent these cases are proceeding, we are
vigorously defending the lawsuits. However, an adverse decision in any of these cases could result in substantial damages against us.
For a discussion of certain environmental matters, see "Business — Environmental Matters" in Item 1.
21