Securities fraud against Swift

Swift Transportation – National Securities Law Firm Encourages Shareholders With Significant Losses To Contact Law Firm

July 28, 2014: 12:06 PM ET

NEW YORK, July 28, 2014/PRNewswire/ — Tripp Levy PLLC, a leading national securities law firm, announces that it is investigating potential securities fraud claims against Swift Transportation Co. (NYSE: SWFT) (“Swift” or the “Company”) resulting from allegations that Swift may have made false and misleading disclosures concerning its business and financial condition.

On July 25, 2014, Swift tumbled the most since its 2010 initial public offering, after the Company forecast third-quarter financial results below that of analysts’ estimates due to a “shortage” of drivers.  Swift said that it was “constrained” by a challenging driver market in the second quarter and that turnover was higher than anticipated.

Following this announcement, the stock fell over $4.60 per share to $21.20 per share on July 25, 2014. 

Tripp Levy PLLC is looking at filing a potential action that seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Swift publicly traded securities during the period January 27, 2014 through and including July 25, 2014 (the “Class Period”).  

If you purchased shares of Swift during the Class Period and suffered significant losses on your investment, and wish to discuss this matter at no cost or expense, please contact Tripp Levy PLLC via e-mail at or call us toll free at 1-800-511-7037 or visit our website at

Tripp Levy PLLC is a leading national securities and shareholder rights law firm with offices across the country representing both individual and institutional shareholders and, along with its affiliates, has recovered billions of dollars for shareholders.  Tripp Levy PLLC is affiliated with Milberg LLP. Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not indicate a similar outcome


Toll free: 1-800-511-7037

International:  602.241.2841





In Ellis v. Swift Transportation Co. of AZ , the plaintiffs claimed that Swift violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act by performing credit checks without advising applicants of certain things required by the law. A tentative settlement was reached between the parties which called for each owner operator to receive $50 in settlement of these claims. The settlement notice that was mailed did not advise owner operators of the full scope of claims that might be “released” by accepting the $50 or by failing to exclude themselves from the settlement. Because the release language in the settlement could be taken to mean that Owner Ops give up claims which are being raised in this case: such as whether Swift engaged in Forced Labor by using the DAC Report to force drivers to continue to work for Swift, Getman Sweeney is extremely concerned that settlement is not in any Owner-Operator’s interest. Plaintiffs’ lawyers in this case are reaching out to the Plaintiffs’ attorneys in Ellis v. Swift , to see if our concerns can be addressed in such a way that the drivers can participate in that settlement and avoid giving up claims that are asserted in this case. Until further notice, however, Getman Sweeney advises its clients to DO NOTHING with respect to making a claim in the Ellis case. We will be in touch with clients individually following our discussion with the lawyers for the drivers in the Ellis case. If you have not heard from us individually by mid-September, please contact the office for further advice concerning how to handle claims in the Ellis case.

Swift denied

Supreme Court Denies Swift’s Motion to Hear Case – June 16, 2014

The Supreme Court today denied Swift Transportation’s motion to hear Swift’s argument as to why the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong. This is a significant victory for the Drivers in this case. The Supreme Court’s ruling, leaves standing a ruling by the Ninth Circuit which was favorable to the drivers, holding that the District Court cannot send the case to arbitration to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act applies. While the issue is fairly technical, it is an important one for truckers. Most importantly, it means that there will not be another year or more of delay before the case moves forward.

Swift centaur

Swift Files Petition for Certiorari in the Supreme Court – February 4, 2014

Swift has filed a “petition for certiorari” with the Supreme Court asking the high court to hear Swift’s challenge to the Ninth Circuit’s decision that the District Court must decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act applies to this case before sending the case to arbitration. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling was a critical decision in favor of the drivers, since it meant that the District Court must decide whether the ICOA/Lease constitute a contract of employment, and if the Court found the contract to be one of “employment” then the case would never go to arbitration. In fact, in a similar case against Central Refrigerated, the Court found the ICOA/Lease to be a contract of employment that could not be sent to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Swift wants the drivers to have to ask that question individually in arbitration – where it knows that few, if any, drivers will be able to afford litigating the case individually. The Ninth Circuit had agreed to stay its decision, giving Swift 90 days in which to make another stay motion to the Supreme Court, which it has not done. If the Supreme Court does not stay the case while it considers whether or not to take the case, the current stay will expire. Click here to read Swift’s petition for certiorari . The Supreme Court gets approximately 7,000 requests to hear cases each year, but hears only one to two percent.

Sore losers

Swift Vows to Take Case to Supreme Court – December 10, 2013

Swift asked the Ninth Circuit to stay its decision requiring the District Judge to determine if the drivers are employees or contractors. Swift claims it will be filing a “petition for certiorari” with the Supreme Court asking it to reverse the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit agreed to stay its decision – but only for 90 days, giving Swift time to make another stay motion to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court does not stay the case while it considers whether or not to take the case, the current stay will expire and the case will proceed. This stay application is not surprising, since Swift has shown it will do anything it can to avoid or delay having the Court hear the drivers case. We will know soon whether the Supreme Court will decide to stay the decision while it decides whether to hear the case.