UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
MESA AIR GROUP, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
| |
|
|
|
|
Nevada
(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
|
|
000-15495
(Commission
File Number)
|
|
85-0302351
(IRS Employer
Identification No.) |
410 North 44th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona, 85008
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
(Zip Code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:
(602) 685-4000Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the
filing obligation of
the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction
A.2. below):
| o |
|
Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
| |
| o |
|
Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
| |
| o |
|
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14d-2(b)) |
| |
| o |
|
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.13e-4(c)) |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item 8.01 Other Events.
On
September 27, 2007, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii entered a
pre-trial ruling in connection with a motion for sanctions against Mesa Air Group, Inc. (the
“Company”) in a lawsuit
brought by Hawaiian Airlines against
the Company. The lawsuit stems from
the Company’s alleged
misuse of Hawaiian Airlines confidential information by
the Company’s Chief Financial Officer,
George
“Peter” Murnane III in connection with
the Company’s launch of its own Hawaiian carrier,
go!. According to the motion for sanctions,
Hawaiian alleged that Mr. Murnane destroyed or
“spoiled”
certain evidence relating to whether
the Company received
confidential information from Hawaiian. As previously disclosed, the
Company has placed Mr. Murnane on administrative leave while it
investigates the allegations.
Pursuant to the Court’s oral ruling, which will be followed by a written ruling, the Court
drew a negative inference from the actions of Mr. Murnane to arrive at three findings: (i) Mesa
kept whatever “confidential information” it received from Hawaiian and didn’t return or destroy it
as the confidentiality agreement with Hawaiian required, (ii) to
the extent it received confidential information from Hawaiian, Mesa
is deemed to have misused such information when deciding whether to enter into the Hawaiian market, and (iii)
the misuse of any such confidential information was a substantial factor in Mesa’s decision to
enter the market.
The Court specifically found that no other employee of
the Company was engaged in any alleged
misconduct relating to the litigation.
The Court stated that it would still consider whether and to what extent the information that
Hawaiian gave to Mesa was actually Evaluation Material as defined in confidentiality agreement or
whether that information was, as
the Company maintains, generally available to the public. Finally,
the Court stated that it was not prepared to make any rulings as to a monetary sanction against the
Company. Any monetary sanction is likely to include an award of Hawaiian’s attorney and experts
fees.
The
trial relating to the lawsuit is scheduled to begin this week. Given the nature of the
sanctions ruling and that a more detailed written ruling is to follow, while the underlying
litigation will continue to move forward, it is impossible to predict what effect, if any, this
ruling will have on the outcome of the case as a whole.
