Document:

EX-10.2

 Exhibit 10.2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
  

					
	  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.
	  	
		 	  
 Plaintiffs,
	  	
	  

v.
	  	  
 Case No. 1:13-cv-01236 (CKK)

	  
 US
AIRWAYS GROUP, INC.
	  	
	  

and
	  	
	  

AMR CORPORATION
	  	
	 	 	  

Defendants.
  
	  	

 ASSET PRESERVATION ORDER AND STIPULATION 

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the undersigned parties, subject to approval and entry by the Court, that: 

I. DEFINITIONS 
 As used
in this Asset Preservation Order and Stipulation: 
 A. “Acquirer” or “Acquirers” means the entity or entities, approved
by the United States in its sole discretion in consultation with the Plaintiff States, to which Defendants may divest all or specified parts of the Divestiture Assets. 

B. “American” means Defendant AMR Corporation, its parents, successors and assigns, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates,
partnerships and joint ventures; and all directors, officers, employees, agents, and representatives of the foregoing. As used in this definition, the terms “parent,” “subsidiary,” “affiliate,” and “joint
venture” refer to 

  
 1 

 
any person or entity in which American holds, directly or indirectly, a majority (greater than 50 percent) or total ownership or control or which holds, directly or indirectly a majority (greater
than 50 percent) or total ownership or control in American. 
 C. “Associated Ground Facilities” means the facilities owned or
operated by Defendants and reasonably necessary for Acquirer(s) to operate the Divested Assets at the relevant airport, including, but not limited to, ticket counters, hold-rooms, leased jet bridges, and operations space. 

D. “DCA Gates and Facilities” means all rights and interests held by Defendants in the gates at Washington Reagan National Airport
(“DCA”) described in Exhibit A and in the Associated Ground Facilities, up to the extent such gates and Associated Ground Facilities were used by Defendants to support the use of the DCA Slots. 

E. “DCA Slots” means all rights and interests held by Defendants in the 104 slots at DCA listed in Exhibit A, consisting of two air
carrier slots held by US Airways at DCA and 102 air carrier slots held by American at DCA, including the JetBlue Slots. 
 F.
“Divestiture Assets” means (1) the DCA Slots, (2) the DCA Gates and Facilities, (3) the LGA Slots, (4) the LGA Gates and Facilities, and (5) the Key Airport Gates and Facilities. 

G. “JetBlue Slots” means all rights and interests held by Defendants in the 16 slots at DCA currently leased by American to JetBlue
Airways, Inc., listed in Exhibit A. 
 H. “Key Airport” means each of the following airports: (1) Boston Logan International
Airport; (2) Chicago O’Hare International Airport; (3) Dallas Love Field; (4) Los Angeles International Airport; and (5) Miami International Airport. 

  
 2 

 I. “Key Airport Gates and Facilities” means all rights and interests held by Defendants
in two gates at each Key Airport as described in Exhibit C. The term “Key Airport Gates and Facilities” includes Associated Ground Facilities, up to the extent such facilities were used by Defendants to support the gates described in
Exhibit C. 
 J. “LGA Gates and Facilities” means all rights and interests held by Defendants in the gates at New York LaGuardia
Airport (“LGA”) described in Exhibit B and Associated Ground Facilities up to the extent of such gates and Associated Ground Facilities were used by Defendants to support the use of the LGA Slots. 

K. “LGA Slots” means the 34 slots at New York LaGuardia Airport (“LGA”) listed in Exhibit B, consisting of the Southwest
Slots and 24 additional slots held by American or US Airways. 
 L. “Slot Bundles” means groupings of DCA Slots and LGA Slots, as
determined by the United States in its sole discretion in consultation with the Plaintiff States. 
 M. “Southwest Slots” means
the 10 slots at LGA currently leased by American to Southwest Airlines, Inc. listed in Exhibit B. 
 N. “Transaction” means the
transaction referred to in the Agreement and Plan of Merger among AMR Corporation, AMR Merger Sub, Inc., and US Airways Group, Inc., dated as of February 13, 2013. 

O. “US Airways” means Defendant US Airways Group, Inc., its parents, successors and assigns, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates,
partnerships and joint ventures; and all directors, officers, employees, agents, and representatives of the foregoing. For purposes of this definition, the terms “parent,” “subsidiary,” “affiliate,” and “joint

  
 3 

 
venture” refer to any person or entity in which US Airways holds, directly or indirectly, a majority (greater than 50 percent) or total ownership or control or which holds, directly or
indirectly, a majority (greater than 50 percent) or total ownership or control in US Airways. 
 II. OBJECTIVES 

The Proposed Final Judgment filed in this case is meant to ensure Defendants’ prompt divestiture of the Divestiture Assets in order to
remedy the effects that Plaintiffs allege would otherwise result from the merger of American and US Airways. If approved by the Court, the Proposed Final Judgment would fully resolve the United States’ claim in this antitrust lawsuit. This
Stipulation and Order ensures, prior to such divestitures, that the Divestiture Assets are maintained during the pendency of the ordered divestitures. 

III. JURISDICTION 
 The
Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over each of the parties hereto, and venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 

IV. COMPLIANCE WITH AND ENTRY OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT 

A. The parties stipulate that a Final Judgment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A may be filed with and entered by the Court, upon the
motion of any party or upon the Court’s own motion, at any time after compliance with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 16, and without further notice to any party or other
proceedings, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent, which it may do at any time before the entry of the proposed Final Judgment by serving notice thereof on Defendants and by filing that notice with the

  
 4 

 
Court. Defendants agree to arrange, at their expense, publication as quickly as possible of the newspaper notice required by the APPA, which shall be drafted by the United States in its sole
discretion. The publication shall be arranged no later than three (3) business days after Defendants’ receipt from the United States of the text of the notice and the identity of the newspaper within which the publication shall be made.
Defendants shall promptly send to the United States (1) confirmation that publication of the newspaper notice has been arranged, and (2) the certification of the publication prepared by the newspaper within which the notice was published.

 B. Defendants shall abide by and comply with the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment, pending the Judgment’s entry by the
Court, or until expiration of time for all appeals of any Court ruling declining entry of the proposed Final Judgment, and shall, from the date of the signing of this Stipulation by the parties, comply with all the terms and provisions of the
proposed Final Judgment. The United States shall have the full rights and enforcement powers in the proposed Final Judgment as though the same were in full force and effect as an order of the Court. 

C. Defendants shall not consummate the transaction sought to be enjoined by the Complaint herein before the Court has signed this Stipulation
and Order. 
 D. This Stipulation shall apply with equal force and effect to any amended proposed Final Judgment agreed upon in writing by
the parties and submitted to the Court. 
 E. In the event that (1) the United States has withdrawn its consent, as provided in Section
IV(A) above, or (2) the proposed Final Judgment is not entered pursuant to this Stipulation, the time has expired for all appeals of any Court ruling 

  
 5 

 
declining entry of the proposed Final Judgment, and the Court has not otherwise ordered continued compliance with the terms and provisions of the proposed Final Judgment, then the parties are
released from all further obligations under this Stipulation, and the making of this Stipulation shall be without prejudice to any party in this or any other proceeding. 

F. Defendants represent that the divestitures ordered in the proposed Final Judgment can and will be made, and that Defendants will later
raise no claim of mistake, hardship, or difficulty of compliance as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the provisions contained therein. 

V. ASSET PRESERVATION AGREEMENT 

Until the divestitures required by the Final Judgment have been accomplished: 

A. Defendants shall take all steps necessary to ensure that their respective Divestiture Assets will be maintained. Defendants shall not cause
the wasting or deterioration of their respective divestiture assets, nor shall they cause the Divestiture Assets to be operated in a manner inconsistent with applicable laws, nor shall they sell, transfer, encumber, or otherwise impair the
viability, marketability or competitiveness of their respective Divestiture Assets. With respect to the DCA Slots and the LGA Slots, Defendants will operate the slots at a level sufficient to prevent any slot from reverting to the Federal Aviation
Administration pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 93.227 (DCA) or 71 Fed. Reg. 77,854 (Dec. 27, 2006), as extended by 78 Fed. Reg. 28, 279 (Oct. 24, 2013)(LGA). 

B. Defendants shall take all steps necessary to ensure that their respective Divestiture Assets are fully maintained in operable condition,
and shall maintain and 

  
 6 

 
adhere to normal upgrade, repair and maintenance schedules for their respective Divestiture Assets. 

C. Defendants shall not, except as part of a divestiture approved by the United States, in consultation with the Plaintiff States, in
accordance with the terms of the proposed Final Judgment, remove, sell, lease, assign, transfer, pledge or otherwise dispose of their respective Divestiture Assets. 

D. Defendants shall take no action that would jeopardize, delay, or impede the sale of any Divestiture Assets. 

E. Defendants shall take no action that would interfere with the ability of any Divestiture Trustee appointed pursuant to the Final Judgment
to complete the divestitures pursuant to the Final Judgment to an Acquirer or Acquirers acceptable to the United States, in consultation with the Plaintiff States. 

F. Defendants shall provide sufficient working capital and lines and sources of credit to continue to maintain the Divestiture Assets as
economically viable and competitive, ongoing businesses, consistent with the requirements of Sections V (A) and (B). 
 G. Defendants
shall appoint a person or persons to oversee the Divestiture Assets, and who will be responsible for Defendants’ compliance with this section. This person shall have complete managerial responsibility for the Divestiture Assets, subject to the
provisions of this Final Judgment. In the event such person is unable to perform his duties, Defendants shall appoint, subject to the approval of the United States, a replacement within ten (10) working days. Should defendants fail to appoint a

  
 7 

 
replacement acceptable to the United States within this time period, the United States shall appoint a replacement. 

VI. DURATION OF ASSET PRESERVATION AGREEMENT 

Defendants’ obligations under Section V. of this Stipulation and Order shall remain in effect until (1) consummation of the
divestitures required by the proposed Final Judgment or (2) further order of the Court. If the United States voluntarily dismisses the Complaint in this matter, Defendants are released from all further obligations under this Stipulation and
Order. 
 VII. STAY OF LITIGATION 

Entry of this Stipulation and Order shall stay all deadlines established by the Scheduling and Case Management Order (Doc. 71) and Trial
Procedures Order (Doc. 128) or amendments to same, pending further order of the court, if any. 
 ORDER 

It is SO ORDERED this      day of November 2013. 

 

	
	  

	United States District Judge

  
 8 

 Respectfully submitted on the 12th of November, 2013: 

 

					
	 /s/
	 		 	 /s/

	Michael D. Billiel (DC Bar #394377)	 		 	Richard G. Parker (DC Bar #327544)
	Trial Attorney	 		 	Henry Thumann (DC Bar #474499)
	U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE	 		 	Courtney Dyer (DC Bar #490805)
	Antitrust Division	 		 	O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
	450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 8000	 		 	1625 Eye Street, N.W.
	Washington, DC 20530	 		 	Washington, D.C. 20006
	(202) 307-6666	 		 	(202) 383-5300 (Phone)
	michael.billiel@usdoj.gov	 		 	(202) 383-5414 (Facsimile)
		 		 	rparker@omm.com
	Attorney for Plaintiff United States	 		 	cdyer@omm.com
		 		 	krobson@omm.com
	 /s/
	 		 	
	Nancy M. Bonnell	 		 	Kenneth R. O’Rourke (admitted pro hac vice)
	Antitrust Unit Chief	 		 	O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
	Arizona Bar No. 016382	 		 	400 South Hope Street
	1275 West Washington	 		 	Los Angeles, CA 90071
	Phoenix, Arizona 85007	 		 	(213) 430-6000 (Phone)
	Telephone: 602-542-7728	 		 	(213) 430-6407 (Facsimile)
	Facsimile: 602-542-9088	 		 	korourke@omm.com
	nancy.bonnell@azag.gov	 		 	
		 		 	Paul T. Denis (DC Bar #437040)
	Attorney for Plaintiff State of Arizona	 		 	Gorav Jindal (DC Bar #471059)
		 		 	DECHERT LLP
	 /s/
	 		 	1900 K Street, N.W.
	Bennett Rushkoff (D.C. Bar # 386925)	 		 	Washington, DC 20006
	Chief, Public Advocacy Section	 		 	(202) 261-3300 (Phone)
	Nicholas A. Bush (D.C. Bar # 1011001)	 		 	(202) 261-3333 (Facsimile)
	Assistant Attorney General	 		 	paul.denis@dechert.com
	Office of the Attorney General	 		 	gorav.jindal@dechert.com
	441 Fourth Street, N.W., Suite 600-S	 		 	
	Washington, DC 20001	 		 	Charles F. Rule (DC Bar #370818)
	Telephone: 202-442-9841	 		 	Andrew Forman (DC Bar #477425)
	Facsimile: 202- 715-7720	 		 	CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM
	bennett.rushkoff@dc.gov	 		 	& TAFT LLP
	nicholas.bush@dc.gov	 		 	700 Sixth Street, N.W.
		 		 	Washington, DC 20001
	Attorneys for Plaintiff District of Columbia	 		 	(202) 862-2200 (Phone)
		 		 	(202) 862-2400 (Facsimile)
		 		 	rick.rule@cwt.com
		 		 	andrew.forman@cwt.com
			
		 		 	Attorneys for Defendant
		 		 	US Airways Group, Inc.

  
 9 

					
	 /s/
	 		 	 /s/

	Lizabeth A. Brady	 		 	John M. Majoras (DC Bar # 474267)
	Chief, Multistate Antitrust Enforcement	 		 	Paula Render (admitted pro hac vice)
	Christopher Hunt	 		 	Michael S. Fried (DC Bar # 458347)
	Assistant Attorney General	 		 	Rosanna K. McCalips (DC Bar # 482859)
	PL-01, The Capitol	 		 	JONES DAY
	Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050	 		 	51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
	Telephone: 850-414-3300	 		 	Washington, DC 20001
	Facsimile: 850-488-9134	 		 	(202) 879-3939 (Phone)
	liz.brady@myfloridalegal.com	 		 	(202) 626-1700 (Facsimile)
		 		 	jmmajoras@jonesday.com
	Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Florida	 		 	prender@jonesday.com
		 		 	msfried@jonesday.com
		 		 	rkmccalips@jonesday.com
	 /s/
	 		 	
	James A. Donahue, III	 		 	Mary Jean Moltenbrey (DC Bar #481127)
	Executive Deputy Attorney General	 		 	PAUL HASTINGS LLP
	PA Bar No. 42624	 		 	875 15th Street, NW
	Jennifer A. Thomson	 		 	Washington, DC 20005
	Deputy Attorney General	 		 	(202) 551-1725 (Phone)
	Public Protection Division	 		 	(202) 551- 0225 (Facsimile)
	14th Floor, Strawberry Square	 		 	mjmoltenbrey@paulhastings.com
	Harrisburg, PA 17120	 		 	
	Telephone: 717-787-4530	 		 	Attorneys for Defendant
	Facsimile: 717-787-1190	 		 	AMR Corporation
	 jdonahue@attorneygeneral.gov

jthomson@attorneygeneral.gov
	 		 	
			
	Attorneys for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania	 		 	
			
	 /s/
	 		 	
	Victor J. Domen, Jr.	 		 	
	Senior Antitrust Counsel	 		 	
	Tennessee Bar No. 015803	 		 	
	500 Charlotte Avenue	 		 	
	Nashville, TN 37202	 		 	
	Telephone: 615-253-3327	 		 	
	Facsimile: 615-532-6951	 		 	
	Vic.Domen@ag.tn.gov	 		 	
			
	Attorney for Plaintiff State of Tennessee	 		 	

  
 10 

					
	 /s/
	 		 	
	Sarah Oxenham Allen (Va. Bar # 33217)	 		 	
	Matthew R. Hull (Va. Bar # 80500)	 		 	
	Assistant Attorneys General	 		 	
	Office of the Attorney General	 		 	
	Consumer Protection Section	 		 	
	900 East Main Street	 		 	
	Richmond, VA 23219	 		 	
	Telephone: 804-786-6557	 		 	
	 Facsimile: 804 786-0122

soallen@oag.state.va.us
 mhull@oag.state.va.us
	 		 	
			
	Attorneys for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Virginia	 		 	
			
	 /s/
	 		 	
	D.J. Pascoe	 		 	
	Assistant Attorney General	 		 	
	Michigan Bar No. P54041	 		 	
	Corporate Oversight Division	 		 	
	P.O. Box 30755	 		 	
	Lansing, Michigan 48909	 		 	
	Phone: (517) 373-1160	 		 	
	Fax: (517) 335-6755	 		 	
	PascoeD1@Michigan.gov	 		 	
			
	Attorney for Plaintiff State of Michigan	 		 	

  
 11EX-10.3

  Case 1:13-cv-01236-CKK    Document 149-1    Filed
11/12/13    Page
 1
 of 10 
 Exhibit 10.3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 

			
	  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.
	  	
	 	
	Plaintiffs,      	  	
	 	
	v.	  	
	 	
	 	  	Case No. 1:13-cv-01236 (CKK)
	  
 US AIRWAYS
GROUP, INC.
  
 and
	  	
	 	
	AMR CORPORATION	  	
	 	
	
Defendants.      
  
	  	

 SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATED ORDER 

  
 1 

  Case 1:13-cv-01236-CKK    Document 149-1    Filed
11/12/13    Page
 2
 of 10 
  

 WHEREAS, Plaintiff States of Arizona, Florida, Tennessee and Michigan, the Commonwealths of
Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the District of Columbia (“Plaintiff States”) filed their Complaint against Defendants US Airways Group, Inc. (“US Airways”) and AMR Corporation (“American”) on August 13, 2013, as
amended on September 5, 2013; 
 AND WHEREAS, the Plaintiff States and Defendants, by their respective attorneys, have consented to the
entry of this Supplemental Stipulated Order without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this Supplemental Stipulated Order constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;

 AND WHEREAS, Defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of this Supplemental Stipulated Order pending its entry by the Court; 

AND WHEREAS, Defendants have represented to the Plaintiff States that the commitments required below can and will be made, and that the
Defendants will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the provisions below other than those set forth in this Supplemental Stipulated Order; 

NOW THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, it
is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: 
  

	I.	JURISDICTION 

 This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to
this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted against 

  
 2 

  Case 1:13-cv-01236-CKK    Document 149-1    Filed
11/12/13    Page
 3
 of 10 
  

 
Defendants US Airways and American under Section 7 of the Clayton Act as amended (15 U.S.C. § 18). 
  

	II.	DEFINITIONS 

 A. Unless otherwise indicated, defined terms have the meaning ascribed to them in
the Proposed Final Judgment filed simultaneously herewith. 
 B. “New American” or “the New American” means the merged
entity after the Transaction has closed. 
  

	III.	APPLICABILITY 

 A. This Supplemental Stipulated Order applies to Defendants and all other
persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Supplemental Stipulated Order by personal service or otherwise. 
  

	IV.	HUBS 

 A. Following completion of the merger, and until the third anniversary of the date on
which a Stipulation and Final Judgment incorporating these terms, both customary in form, are filed with the Court (the “Effective Date”), New American will maintain in a manner generally consistent with historical operations its hubs at
Charlotte Douglas International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Miami International Airport, Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Philadelphia International Airport, and Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport. 

  
 3 

  Case 1:13-cv-01236-CKK    Document 149-1    Filed
11/12/13    Page
 4
 of 10 
  

 V. COMMUNITIES 

Following completion of the merger, and until the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date, New American will provide daily scheduled service
(holidays excepted) from one or more of its hubs to each airport in each of the Plaintiff States set forth in this Section V that had scheduled daily service (holidays excepted) by either American or US Airways at the time of the commencement of the
Litigation, except for service that is discontinued as the result of the slot and facilities divestitures required as a condition to completing the merger: 
  

					
	State	  	Code	  	Airport
			
	Arizona	  	FLG	  	FLAGSTAFF
			
		  	PHX	  	PHOENIX
			
		  	TUS	  	TUCSON INT’L
			
		  	YUM	  	YUMA
			
	Florida	  	DAB	  	DAYTONA BEACH
			
		  	EYW	  	KEY WEST
			
		  	FLL	  	FT. LAUDERDALE INT’L
			
		  	GNV	  	GAINESVILLE
			
		  	JAX	  	JACKSONVILLE INT’L
			
		  	MCO	  	ORLANDO INT’L
			
		  	MIA	  	MIAMI INT’L
			
		  	MLB	  	MELBOURNE KENNEDY
			
		  	PBI	  	WEST PALM BEACH INT’L

  
 4 

  Case 1:13-cv-01236-CKK    Document 149-1    Filed
11/12/13    Page
 5
 of 10 
  

					
			
		  	PNS	  	PENSACOLA REGIONAL
			
		  	RSW	  	FORT MYERS REGIONAL
			
		  		  	SARASOTA/BRADENTON
			
		  	SRQ	  	BRADENTON
			
		  	TLH	  	TALLAHASSEE MUNICIPAL
			
		  	TPA	  	TAMPA INTERNATIONAL
			
		  	VPS	  	VALPARAISO / FT WALTON BEACH
			
	Michigan	  	AZO	  	KALAMAZOO KAL/BTLCRK
			
		  	DTW	  	DETROIT WAYNE CO
			
		  	FNT	  	FLINT BISHOP
			
		  	GRR	  	GRAND RAPIDS KENT CTY
			
		  	MQT	  	MARQUETTE
			
		  	TVC	  	TRAVERSE CITY
			
	Pennsylvania	  	ABE	  	ALLENTOWN BETHLEHEM
			
		  	AVP	  	WILKES-BARRE/SCRANTON
			
		  	ERI	  	ERIE INTL
			
		  	IPT	  	WILLIAMSPORT
			
		  	MDT	  	HARRISBURG INTL
			
		  	PHL	  	PHILADELPHIA PA/WILM’TON INT’L
			
		  	PIT	  	PITTSBURGH INT’L

  
 5 

  Case 1:13-cv-01236-CKK    Document 149-1    Filed
11/12/13    Page
 6
 of 10 
  

					
			
		  	SCE	  	STATE COLLEGE
			
	Tennessee	  	BNA	  	NASHVILLE METRO
			
		  	CHA	  	CHATTANOOGA LOVELL
			
		  	MEM	  	MEMPHIS INTL
			
		  	TRI	  	TRI-CITY AIRPORT MUNICIPAL
			
		  	TYS	  	KNOXVILLE TYSON
			
	Virginia	  	CHO	  	CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE
			
		  	DCA	  	WASHINGTON NATIONAL
			
		  	IAD	  	WASHINGTON DULLES
			
		  	LYH	  	LYNCHBURG
			
		  	ORF	  	NORFOLK INTL
			
		  	PHF	  	HAMPTON INTL
			
		  	RIC	  	RICHMOND/WMBG INT’L
			
		  	ROA	  	ROANOKE MUNICIPAL

 VI. FORCE MAJEURE 

A. New American shall not be deemed in violation of this Supplemental Stipulated Order if it fails to comply with the provisions in Sections
IV and V herein due to force majeure events including, without limitation, strikes, boycotts, labor disputes, embargoes, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, acts of a governmental authority, terrorism, riots, rebellion, sabotage, quarantine
restrictions, lockouts, war, epidemics, 

  
 6 

  Case 1:13-cv-01236-CKK    Document 149-1    Filed
11/12/13    Page
 7
 of 10 
  

 
volcanic eruptions, wild fires, or extraordinary security requirements (“Force Majeure”). Should any such Force Majeure occur, New American will provide notice to the Plaintiff States
as soon as reasonably practicable, and provide documentation of the circumstances as reasonably requested by the Plaintiff States. In addition, to the extent the Force Majeure is of limited duration, New American will resume its obligations
hereunder as soon as reasonably practicable. 
 VII. Material Adverse Change 

A. In the event of a material adverse change in demand, the competitive environment, or New American’s cost to comply with any of the
obligations of Sections IV or V of this Supplemental Stipulated Order, defendants will, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, be relieved of such obligation after 30 days prior notice by Defendants to the Plaintiffs and 20 days prior notice by
Defendants to the Court. 
 B. Notice to the Court, under this Section, Section VII, will be satisfied by a motion filed in accordance with
the rules of the Court then in effect. Notice to all Plaintiffs will be satisfied by service by overnight courier addressed to 
 Office of
the Attorney General 
 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Antitrust Section 
 Strawberry
Square, 14th Floor 
 Harrisburg, PA 17120 

Attention: Chief, Antitrust Section 

VIII. ENFORCEMENT 

  
 7 

  Case 1:13-cv-01236-CKK    Document 149-1    Filed
11/12/13    Page
 8
 of 10 
  

 If one or more of the Plaintiff States believes that this Supplemental Stipulated Order has
been violated, they may apply to the court for an order of contempt. Before doing so, such Plaintiff State or States must give the New American notice of its belief that the Supplemental Stipulated Order has been breached and a reasonable
opportunity for the New American to cure any alleged violation or violations; the New American must be in breach for more than 90 days or announced changes to one of its hubs or communities served that indicate that it will be in breach for more
than 90 days. If the court finds that the New American has breached this Supplemental Stipulated Order, the court may order any remedy appropriate to cure the New American’s breach including specific performance or other equitable relief, the
award of damages, other compensation and penalties and costs and attorney’s fees. 
 IX. COMPLIANCE 

One (1) year after the entry of this Supplemental Stipulated Order, annually for the next five years on the anniversary of the entry of
this Supplemental Stipulated Order, at other times as Plaintiff States may require, New American shall provide a verified written report to the Plaintiff States setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied and is complying
with this Supplemental Stipulated Order. 
 X. FEES AND COSTS 

New American shall pay to the Plaintiff States their reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the Litigation in
the aggregate amount of $1.75 million. These costs and fees shall reimburse the cost and fees of the Offices of Attorney General of the Plaintiff States. The portion of this payment representing costs

  
 8 

  Case 1:13-cv-01236-CKK    Document 149-1    Filed
11/12/13    Page
 9
 of 10 
  

 
shall be used to reimburse their costs. The portion of this payment representing fees shall be used for continued Public Protection and Antitrust Enforcement purposes except that the payment to
the District of Columbia shall be paid to the ‘D.C. Treasurer’ and used in accordance with District of Columbia law. The Plaintiff States shall designate to the Defendants a Plaintiff State that shall receive the fees and costs covered by
this section and such Plaintiff State shall redistribute these funds to the other Plaintiff States. 
 XI. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

 This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Supplemental Stipulated Order to apply to this Court at any time for
further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Supplemental Stipulated Order , to modify any of its provisions, to ensure and enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions. 

  
 9 

  Case 1:13-cv-01236-CKK    Document 149-1    Filed
11/12/13    Page
 10
 of 10 
  

 XII. EXPIRATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT 

Unless this Court grants an extension, this Supplemental Stipulated Order shall expire five (5) years from the date of its entry. 

IT IS SO ORDERED by the Court, this      day of             , 2013. 

BY THE COURT: 
 Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly, U.S.D.J. 

  
 10

Source: [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00223-of-00352.parquet"}, [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00223-of-00352.parquet"}]]