See accompanying notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

See accompanying notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

See accompanying notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

1. Organization, Nature of Business and Significant Accounting Policies

Nature of Business

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) is headquartered in Downers Grove, Illinois and has the following three segments: Truckload Logistics (“TL”), Less-than-Truckload (“LTL”), and Ascent Global Logistics (“Ascent”). Within its TL business, the Company operates a network of TL service centers and company dispatch offices which are augmented by independent brokerage agents. Within its LTL business, the Company operates LTL service centers throughout the United States, complemented by relationships with numerous delivery agents. Within its Ascent business, the Company operates company offices, and freight consolidation and inventory management centers throughout the United States. From pickup to delivery, the Company leverages relationships with a diverse group of third-party carriers to provide scalable capacity and reliable, customized service to its customers, including domestic and international air and ocean transportation services. The Company operates primarily in the United States.

Principles of Consolidation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. In the Company's opinion, these financial statements include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair presentation of the operations for the interim periods presented. Interim results are not necessarily indicative of results for a full year.

Change in Accounting Principle

On January 1, 2017, the Company adopted Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-09, Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718), Improvements to Share-Based Payment Accounting. The Company will prospectively recognizes any excess tax benefits or tax deficiencies through the condensed consolidated statements of operations and also offsets excess tax benefits and/or tax deficiencies against taxes payable. Also, the Company adopted the classification of the excess tax benefit on a retrospective basis and did not present excess tax benefits and/or tax deficiencies as financing activities within the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for either period presented. Tax deficiency on share-based compensation was $0.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2016 . The Company has elected to recognize forfeitures as they occur.

Fair Value Option

The fair value option election allows entities to make an irrevocable election of fair value as the initial and subsequent measurement attribute for certain eligible financial assets and liabilities. The decision to elect the fair value option is determined on an instrument by instrument basis and must be applied to an entire instrument and is irrevocable once elected. The Company has elected to measure its preferred stock at fair value pursuant to ASC 820, Fair Value Measurement. Changes in the fair value of preferred stock are recorded in interest expense - preferred stock in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. See Notes 4 and 5 for further information.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

New Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued ASU No. 2014-09 (“ASU 2014-09”), which was updated in August 2015 by ASU No. 2015-14, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606). The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-08 (“ASU 2016-08”), Revenue from Contracts with Customers - Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net). Under ASU 2016-08, when another party is involved in providing goods or services to a customer, an entity is required to determine whether the nature of its promise is to provide the specified good or service (that is, the entity is a principal) or to arrange for that good or service to be provided by another party. When the principal entity satisfies a performance obligation, the entity recognizes revenue in the gross amount. When an entity that is an agent satisfies

the performance obligation, that entity recognizes revenue in the amount of any fee or commission to which it expects to be entitled. Both ASU 2014-09 and ASU 2016-08 will be effective for the Company in 2018. The Company expects to adopt the new revenue standard on January 1, 2018 and is currently assessing all potential impacts of this standard. The Company determined key factors from the five-step process to recognize revenue as prescribed by the new standard that may be applicable to each of the Company's operating businesses that roll up into its three segments. Significant customers and contracts from each business unit were identified and the Company substantially completed the review of these contracts. Evaluation of the provisions of these contracts, and the comparison of historical accounting policies and practices to the requirements of the new standard (including the related qualitative disclosures regarding the potential impact of the effects of the accounting policies the Company expects to apply and a comparison to the Company's current revenue recognition policies), is in process. The Company will complete its process before filing its Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2018. The Company's work to date indicates that certain transactions with customers may require a change in the timing of when revenue and related expense is recognized. The Company is currently in the process of determining the expected quantitative impact that the adoption of Topic 606 will have on its financial statements. The standard allows for either a full retrospective or a modified retrospective adoption approach. The Company has not yet selected a transition method, as this decision will be dependent on the completion of its analysis as discussed above. The Company expects to make this determination prior to filing of, and make disclosure of that determination in, its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 .

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) (“ASU 2016-02”), which will be effective for the Company in 2019. For financing leases, a lessee is required to: (1) recognize a right-of-use asset and a lease liability, initially measured at the present value of the lease payments; (2) recognize interest on the lease liability separately from amortization of the right-of-use asset; and (3) classify repayments of the principal portion of the lease liability within financing activities and payments of interest on the lease liability and variable lease payments within operating activities in the statement of cash flows. For operating leases, a lessee is required to: (1) recognize the right-to-use asset and a lease liability, initially measured at the present value of the lease payments; (2) recognize a single lease cost, calculated so that the cost of the lease is allocated over the lease term generally on a straight-line basis; and (3) classify all cash payments within operating activities in the statement of cash flows. For leases with a term of 12 months or less, a lessee is permitted to make an accounting policy election by class of underlying assets not to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities. If a lessee makes this election, it should recognize lease expense for such leases generally on a straight-line basis over the lease term. The Company is in the process of evaluating the guidance in ASU 2016-02 and will determine the total impact of the new guidance based on the current lease arrangements that are expected to remain in place. The Company expects adoption of this guidance will have a material impact on the Company's consolidated balance sheet given the Company will be required to record operating leases with lease terms greater than 12 months within assets and liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. The Company has not yet determined how it will handle lease terms of 12 months or less.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230) (“ASU 2016-15”), which will be effective for the Company in 2018. ASU 2016-15 provides guidance on specific cash flow issues, including but not limited to: debt prepayment or debt extinguishment costs, contingent consideration payments made after a business combination, proceeds from the settlement of insurance claims, and distributions received from equity method investees. ASU 2016-15 provides guidance on how to account for the cash inflows and/or outflows in the statement of cash flows. The Company does not expect this ASU to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

In October 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-16, Income Taxes (Topic 740) Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other than Inventory (“ASU 2016-16”), which will be effective for the Company in 2018. GAAP currently prohibits the recognition of current and deferred income taxes for intra-entity asset transfers other than inventory (e.g. property and equipment) until the asset has been sold to an outside party. Under ASU 2016-16, the FASB decided that an entity should recognize the income tax consequences of an intra-entity transfer of an asset when the transfer occurs. ASU 2016-16 does not include any new disclosure requirements; however, existing disclosure around the rate reconciliations and types of temporary differences and/or carryforward that give rise to a significant portion of deferred income taxes may be applicable. The Company is in the process of evaluating the guidance for ASU 2016-16 and has not yet quantified the potential impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, Intangibles - Goodwill and Other (Topic 350), Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment (“ASU 2017-04”), which will be effective for the Company in 2020, but early adoption is permitted for interim and annual goodwill impairment tests performed on testing dates after January 1, 2017. ASU 2017-04 eliminates step two from the goodwill impairment test and instead requires an entity to recognize an impairment charge for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit's fair value; however, the loss recognized should not exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. Additionally, an entity should consider income tax effects from any tax deductible goodwill on the carrying amount of the reporting unit when measuring the goodwill impairment loss, if applicable. ASU 2017-04 reduces the amount of time and money spent determining the implied fair value of goodwill, which would allow the Company to more quickly evaluate and identify a recognized impairment.

2. Goodwill and Intangible Assets

Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price of all acquisitions over the estimated fair value of the net assets acquired. The Company evaluates goodwill and intangible assets for impairment at least annually or more frequently whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the asset may be impaired, or in the case of goodwill, the fair value of the reporting unit is below its carrying amount. The analysis of potential impairment of goodwill requires the Company to compare the estimated fair value at each of its reporting units to its carrying amount, including goodwill. If the carrying amount of the reporting unit exceeds the estimated fair value of the reporting unit, a non-cash goodwill impairment loss is recognized as an impairment charge for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit's fair value; however, the loss recognized should not exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit.

For purposes of the impairment analysis, the fair value of the Company’s reporting units is estimated based upon an average of the market approach and the income approach, both of which incorporate numerous assumptions and estimates such as company forecasts, discount rates, and growth rates, among others. The determination of the fair value of the reporting units and the allocation of that value to individual assets and liabilities within those reporting units requires the Company to make significant estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions primarily include, but are not limited to, the selection of appropriate peer group companies, control premiums appropriate for acquisitions in the industries in which the Company competes, the discount rate, terminal growth rates, and forecasts of revenue, operating income, and capital expenditures. The allocation requires several analyses to determine fair value of assets and liabilities including, among others, customer relationships and property and equipment. Although the Company believes its estimates of fair value are reasonable, actual financial results could differ from those estimates due to the inherent uncertainty involved in making such estimates. Changes in assumptions concerning future financial results or other underlying assumptions could have a significant impact on either the fair value of the reporting units, the amount of the goodwill impairment charge, or both. Future declines in the overall market value of the Company's stock may also result in a conclusion that the fair value of one or more reporting units has declined below its carrying value.

The Company has four reporting units for its three segments: one reporting unit for its TL segment; one reporting unit for its LTL segment; and two reporting units for its Ascent segment, which are the Ascent reporting unit and the Warehousing & Consolidation reporting unit. The Company conducts its goodwill impairment analysis for each of its four reporting units as of July 1 of each year.

There were no changes to goodwill during the first six months of 2017. The following is a breakdown of the Company's goodwill as of December 31, 2016 and June 30, 2017 by segment (in thousands):

There were no changes to the accumulated goodwill impairment during the first six months of 2017. The following is a breakdown of the Company's accumulated goodwill impairment losses as of December 31, 2016 and June 30, 2017 by segment (in thousands):

Intangible assets consist primarily of customer relationships acquired from business acquisitions. Intangible assets as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 were as follows (in thousands):

The customer relationships intangible assets are amortized over their estimated useful lives, ranging from five to 12 years. Amortization expense was $2.0 million and $2.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 , respectively. Amortization expense was $4.1 million and $4.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 , respectively. Estimated amortization expense for each of the next five years based on intangible assets as of June 30, 2017 is as follows (in thousands):

3. Debt

Debt as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 consisted of the following (in thousands):

Senior Debt

In 2015, the Company entered into a sixth amended and restated credit agreement (the “credit agreement”) with U.S. Bank National Association and other lenders, which increased the revolving credit facility from $350.0 million to $400.0 million and the term loan from $200.0 million to $300.0 million . The credit facility had a maturity date of July 9, 2019 . Principal on the term loan was due in quarterly installments of $3.8 million . On June 17, 2016, the Company entered into a Consent, Waiver, and First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the credit agreement. Pursuant to the Amendment, the Company, among other things, reduced the revolving line of credit under the senior credit facility from a maximum aggregate amount of $400.0 million to $300.0 million . The Company further reduced the revolving line of credit under the senior credit facility to $250.0 million pursuant to a Waiver entered into on November 14, 2016.

The credit agreement was collateralized by all assets of the Company and contained certain financial covenants, including a maximum cash flow leverage ratio and a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio. Pursuant to the Amendment, the maximum cash flow leverage ratio and minimum fixed charge coverage ratio were modified for certain future periods. As modified by the Amendment, the maximum cash flow leverage ratio was 4.50 to 1.0 for the four quarters ended June 30, 2016 and decreased to 4.00 to 1.0 for the four quarters ending September 30, 2016, 3.75 to 1.0 for the four quarters ending December 31, 2016, 3.50 to 1.0 for the four quarters ending March 31, 2017, 3.25 to 1.0 for the four quarters ending June 30, 2017. As modified by the Amendment, the minimum fixed charge coverage ratio was 1.15 to 1.0 for the four quarters ended June 30, 2016, continued to be 1.15 to 1.0 for the four quarters ending September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2016, and finally increased to 1.25 to 1.0 for all periods thereafter.

Additionally, the credit agreement contained negative covenants limiting, among other things, additional indebtedness, capital expenditures, transactions with affiliates, additional liens, sales of assets, dividends, investments, advances, prepayments of debt, mergers and acquisitions, and other matters customarily restricted in such agreements.

The Company categorizes the borrowings under the credit agreement as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy described in Note 3. The carrying value of the Company's debt approximates fair value as the debt agreement bears interest based on prevailing

variable market rates currently available. Borrowings under the credit agreement bore interest at either (a) the Eurocurrency Rate (as defined in the credit agreement), plus an applicable margin in the range of 2.0% to 3.50% , or (b) the Base Rate (as defined in the credit agreement), plus an applicable margin in the range of 1.0% to 2.50% . The revolving credit facility also provided for the issuance of up to $40.0 million in letters of credit.

The Company was not in compliance with its debt covenants for the year ended December 31, 2016 and accordingly, the Company's senior debt was classified as current on its condensed consolidated balance sheets. On February 27, 2017, the Company entered into a Forbearance Agreement and Second Amendment to the credit agreement (the “Forbearance Agreement”). Pursuant to the Forbearance Agreement, the Company's lenders agreed to forbear from exercising the remedies available under the credit agreement in respect to certain disclosed credit agreement events of default until the earliest to occur of (i) a breach by the Company of any of its covenants in the Forbearance Agreement, (ii) any other default or event of default under the credit agreement, (iii) March 31, 2017, and (iv) certain other specified events, including a material adverse effect. The Forbearance Agreement also amended certain credit agreement covenants and other provisions, required certain reporting and information, and imposed other obligations on the Company. On March 31, 2017, the Company entered into a Forbearance Agreement Extension and Third Amendment to the credit agreement (the “Forbearance Extension”). Pursuant to the Forbearance Extension, the Company’s lenders agreed to forbear from exercising the remedies available under the credit agreement in respect of certain disclosed credit agreement events of default until the earliest to occur of (i) a breach by the Company of any of its covenants in the Forbearance Extension, (ii) any other default or event of default under the credit agreement, (iii) May 19, 2017, and (iv) certain other specified events, including a material adverse effect. The Forbearance Extension also amended certain credit agreement covenants and other provisions, required certain reporting and information, and imposed other obligations on the Company.

The senior debt was paid off with the proceeds from the issuance of preferred stock on May 2, 2017. See Note 5 for further information. In connection with the pay-off the Company recorded a loss from debt extinguishment of $9.8 million .

ABL Facility

On July 21, 2017, the Company entered into a credit agreement with BMO Harris Bank, N.A. and certain other lenders (the “ABL Facility”). The Company used the initial proceeds from the ABL Facility for working capital purposes and to redeem all of the outstanding shares of its Series F Preferred Stock. See Note 13 for additional information regarding the ABL Facility.

4. Preferred Stock

Preferred stock as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 consisted of the following (in thousands):

Preferred Stock

On May 1, 2017 , the Company entered into an Investment Agreement (the “Investment Agreement”), which closed on May 2, 2017 , with affiliates of Elliott Management Corporation (“Elliott”), pursuant to which the Company issued and sold shares of its preferred stock and issued warrants to Elliott for an aggregate purchase price of $540.5 million . The proceeds of the sale of the preferred stock were used to pay off and terminate the Company’s senior credit facility and to provide working capital to support the Company’s current operations and future growth.

The Company made certain customary representations and warranties and agreed to certain covenants, including agreeing to use reasonable best efforts to enter into, within 90 days following the closing date, an asset based lending facility (the earlier of (i) the date of such entry and (ii) the expiration of such 90 day period, the “Refinancing Date”).

From the closing date until the Refinancing Date, the Company agreed to pay Elliott a daily payment in an amount equal to $33,333.33 per calendar day (which amount accrued daily and was payable monthly in arrears). On July 21, 2017, the Company entered into the ABL Facility (which was deemed to be the “New ABL Facility” under the Investment Agreement).

The preferred stock is mandatorily redeemable and, as such, is presented as a liability on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company has elected to measure the value of its preferred stock using the fair value method. Under the fair value method, issuance costs are expensed as incurred. The Company incurred $16.1 million of issuance costs associated with the preferred stock for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 , which are reflected in interest expense - preferred stock on the condensed consolidated statements of operations. The fair value of preferred stock increased by $8.9 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 , which are reflected in interest expense - preferred stock on the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Certain Terms of the Preferred Stock

Redemption rights are at the option of the Company or upon a change in control, at the option of the holder. The holders of Series C Preferred Stock and Series D Preferred Stock have the right to participate equally and ratably with holders of common stock in all cash dividends paid on shares of common stock.

At each preferred stock dividend payment date, the Company has the option to pay the accrued dividends in cash or to defer them. Deferred dividends earn dividend income consistent with the underlying shares of preferred stock.

Other Terms of the Preferred Stock

Voting. The holders of preferred stock will generally not be entitled to vote on any matters submitted to a vote of the stockholders of the Company. So long as any shares of preferred stock are outstanding, the Company may not take certain actions without the prior approval of the holders of shares of preferred stock representing a majority of the aggregate liquidation value of all of the shares of preferred stock (the “Preferred Requisite Vote”), voting as a separate class.

Board of Directors. For so long as (a) any shares of Series B Preferred Stock or Series C Preferred Stock are issued and outstanding and (b) Elliott hold shares of preferred stock collectively representing a majority of the liquidation value of the preferred stock, the holders of preferred stock shall have the exclusive right, acting with the Preferred Requisite Vote, to nominate and elect two (2) individuals selected by the holders of preferred stock, or to require the Company’s Board of Directors to fill two (2) vacancies in the Board of Directors with individuals selected by the holders of preferred stock, to serve as, respectively, a Class II director and a Class III director of the Company (the “Preferred Stock Directors”).

Following the redemption of all shares of Series B Preferred Stock and Series C Preferred Stock have been redeemed, and until such time as all shares of Series D Preferred Stock are redeemed, for so long as Elliott holds at least 5.0% of the equity value of the Company, the holders of preferred stock shall have the exclusive right acting with the Preferred Requisite Vote, to (i) nominate and elect one (1) Preferred Stock Director, and (ii) designate one individual to act as an observer to the Board of Directors.

In the event of any Triggering Event (as defined in the Certificates of Designations), subject to applicable rules of the New York Stock Exchange, including, without limitation, independent director requirements, the number of directors constituting the Board of Directors shall be increased such that the number of vacancies on the Board of Directors resulting from such increase (the “Triggering Event Vacancies”), together with the Preferred Stock Directors (to the extent then serving on the Board of Directors), constitutes a majority of the Board of Directors. The holders of preferred stock shall have the right, acting with the Preferred Requisite Vote, to nominate and elect individuals selected by the holders of preferred stock to fill such Triggering Event Vacancies and thereby serve as directors of the Company, or to require the Board of Directors to act to fill such Triggering Event Vacancies with individuals selected by such holders of preferred stock, to serve as directors of the Company, and the size of the Board of Directors shall be increased as needed. Each such director so elected is referred to as a “Triggering Event Director”. When a Triggering Event is no longer continuing, then the right of the holders of preferred stock to elect the Triggering Event Directors will cease, the terms of office of the Triggering Event Directors will immediately terminate and the number of directors constituting the Board of Directors will be reduced accordingly. The holders of preferred stock have other rights in the event of a Triggering Event, as described in the Certificate of Designations.

Warrant Agreement

In connection with the issuance of the preferred stock pursuant to the Investment Agreement, the Company and Elliott entered into a Warrant Agreement (the “Warrant Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company issued to Elliott eight year warrants (the “Warrants”) to purchase an aggregate of 379,572 shares of the Company's common stock at an exercise price of $0.01 per share. The value of the Warrants was determined to be $2.6 million based upon the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The warrants were classified as an equity contract and reflected in additional paid-in capital.

Stockholders’ Agreement

In connection with the issuance of the preferred stock pursuant to the Investment Agreement, the Company and Elliott entered into a Stockholders’ Agreement (the “Stockholders’ Agreement”), pursuant to which Elliott was granted certain preemptive rights and other rights.

Subject to customary exceptions, each Eligible Elliott Party (as defined in the Stockholders’ Agreement) shall have the right to purchase their pro rata percentage of subsequent issuances of equity securities offered by the Company in any non-public offering.

Registration Rights Agreement

In connection with the issuance of the preferred stock pursuant to the Investment Agreement, the Company, Elliott, and investment funds affiliated with HCI Equity Management L.P. (“HCI”) entered into a Registration Rights Agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company granted certain demand and piggyback registration rights.

5. Fair Value Measurement

Accounting guidance on fair value measurements for certain financial assets and liabilities requires that assets and liabilities carried at fair value be classified and disclosed in one of the following three categories:

Level 1  — Quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2  — Observable market-based inputs or unobservable inputs that are corroborated by market data.

Level 3  — Unobservable inputs reflecting the reporting entity’s own assumptions or external inputs from inactive markets.

The classification of a financial asset or liability within the hierarchy is determined based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

The Company has elected to measure its preferred stock using the fair value method. The fair value of the preferred stock is the estimated amount that would be paid to redeem the liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The Company calculates the fair value of:

These valuations are considered to be Level 3 fair value measurements as the significant inputs are unobservable and require significant management judgment or estimation. Considerable judgment is required in interpreting market data to develop the estimates of fair value. Accordingly, the Company’s estimates are not necessarily indicative of the amounts that the Company, or holders of the instruments, could realize in a current market exchange. Significant assumptions used in the fair value models include: the estimates of the redemption dates; credit spreads; dividend payments; and the market price of the Company’s common stock. The use of different assumptions and/or estimation methodologies could have a material effect on the estimated fair values.

The table below sets forth a reconciliation of the Company’s beginning and ending Level 3 preferred stock liability balance for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 (in thousands):

(1) Change in fair value of preferred stock is reported in interest expense - preferred stock in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Certain of the Company’s acquisitions contained contingent purchase obligations. The contingent purchase obligation related to acquisitions is measured at fair value on a recurring basis, according to the valuation techniques the Company used to determine fair value. Changes to the fair value are recognized as income or expense within other operating expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. In measuring the fair value of the contingent purchase obligation, the Company used an income approach that considers the expected future earnings of the acquired businesses, for the varying performance periods, based on historical performance and the resulting contingent payments, discounted at a risk-adjusted rate.

At June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company had no contingent purchase obligations related to acquisitions. The table below sets forth a reconciliation of the Company’s beginning and ending Level 3 financial liability balance for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 (in thousands):

6. Stockholders’ Investment

Changes in stockholders’ investment for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 consisted of the following (in thousands):

7. Earnings Per Share

Basic loss per common share is calculated by dividing net loss by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. Diluted loss per share is calculated by dividing net loss by the weighted average common stock outstanding plus stock equivalents that would arise from the assumed exercise of stock options, the conversion of warrants, and the delivery of stock underlying restricted stock units using the treasury stock method. There is no difference, for any of the periods presented, in the amount of net loss used in the computation of basic and diluted loss per share.

The Company had stock options and warrants outstanding of 1,903,467 as of June 30, 2017 and 3,265,393 as of June 30, 2016 that were not included in the computation of diluted loss per share because they were not assumed to be exercised under the treasury stock method or because they were anti-dilutive. All restricted stock units were anti-dilutive for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016. Since the Company was in a net loss position for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, there was no difference between basic and dilutive weighted average common stock outstanding.

8. Income Taxes

The effective income tax rate was 17.1% for three months ended June 30, 2017 and 17.5% for the six months ended June 30, 2017 . The effective income tax rate was 38.7% for three and six months ended June 30, 2016 . The benefit from income taxes varies from the amount computed by applying the federal corporate income tax rate of 35.0% to loss before benefit from income taxes primarily due to state income taxes (net of federal tax effect) and adjustments for permanent differences. In determining the benefit from income taxes, the Company applied an estimated annual effective tax rate to its ordinary operating results, and calculated the tax benefit or provision, if any, of other discrete items individually as they occurred. The estimated annual effective tax rate was based on expected ordinary operating results, statutory tax rates, and the Company's best estimate of non-deductible and non-taxable items of ordinary income and expense.

Non-deductible interest expense associated with the Company's preferred stock impacted the estimated annual effective tax rate for 2017, and therefore decreased the income tax benefit the Company received during the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 . Significant discrete items recognized during the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 included loss from debt extinguishment from the senior debt payoff (tax benefit) and preferred stock issuance costs (no tax benefit).

9. Guarantees

The Company provides a guarantee for a portion of the value of certain independent contractors' (“IC”) leased tractors.  The guarantees expire at various dates through 2021 .  The potential maximum exposure under these lease guarantees was approximately $12.2 million as of June 30, 2017 .  Upon an IC default, the Company has the option to purchase the tractor or return the tractor to the leasing company if the residual value is greater than the Company’s guarantee. Alternatively, the Company can contract another IC to assume the lease.  The Company estimated the fair value of its liability under this on-going guarantee to be $1.5 million and $1.6 million as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , respectively, which are recorded in the condensed consolidated balance sheets in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.

The Company began to offer a lease purchase program that did not include a guarantee, and offered newer equipment under factory warranty that was more cost effective. ICs began electing the newer lease purchase program over the legacy lease guarantee programs which led to an increase in unseated legacy tractors. In late 2016, management committed to a plan to divest these older assets and recorded a loss reserve of $8.9 million as of December 31, 2016 . The loss reserve for the guarantee and reconditioning costs associated with the planned divestiture was $2.9 million as of June 30, 2017 , which was recorded in the condensed consolidated balance sheets in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.

The Company paid $3.0 million and $2.5 million under these lease guarantees during the second quarter of 2017 and 2016 , respectively, and $6.9 million and $5.5 million during the first half of 2017 and 2016 , respectively.

10. Commitments and Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, the Company is a defendant in several legal proceedings arising out of the conduct of its business. These proceedings include claims for property damage or personal injury incurred in connection with the Company’s services. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate disposition of these proceedings, the Company does not believe, based upon the information available at this time, that these property damage or personal injury claims, in the aggregate, will have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements. The Company maintains an aggregate of $100 million of auto liability and general liability insurance. The Company maintains auto liability insurance coverage for claims in excess of $1.0 million per occurrence and cargo coverage for claims in excess of $100,000 per occurrence. The Company is self-insured up to $1.0 million for workers compensation. The Company believes it has adequate insurance to cover losses in excess of the self-insured and deductible amounts. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , the Company had reserves for estimated uninsured losses of $26.1 million and $21.5 million , respectively, included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.

In addition to the legal proceedings described above, the Company is a defendant in various purported class-action lawsuits alleging violations of various California labor laws and one purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Additionally, the California Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement has brought administrative actions against the Company alleging that the Company violated various California labor laws. In 2017 and 2018, the Company reached settlement agreements on a number of these labor related lawsuits and administrative actions. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company recorded a reserve for settlements, litigation, and defense costs of approximately $13.9 million and $10.4 million , respectively, which are recorded in the condensed consolidated balance sheets in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.

Jeffrey Cox and David Chidester filed a Complaint against certain of the Company’s subsidiaries in state court in California in a post-acquisition dispute. The Complaint alleges contract, statutory and tort based claims arising out of the Stock Purchase Agreement, dated November 2, 2012, between the defendants, as buyers, and the plaintiffs, as sellers, for the purchase of the shares of Central Cal Transportation, Inc. and Double C Transportation, Inc. (the “Central Cal Agreement”). The plaintiffs claim that a contingent purchase obligation payment is due and owing pursuant to the Central Cal Agreement, and that defendants have furnished fraudulent calculations to the plaintiffs to avoid payment. The plaintiffs also claim violations of California’s Labor Code related to the plaintiffs’ respective employment with Central Cal Transportation, LLC. On October 27, 2017, the state court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration of all non-employment claims alleged in the Complaint. The plaintiffs are now required to comply with the dispute resolution process outlined in the Central Cal Agreement, and submit the dispute to a Settlement Accountant. In February 2018, Plaintiff David Chidester agreed to dismiss his employment-related claims from the Los Angeles Superior Court matter, while Plaintiff Jeffrey Cox transferred his employment claims from Los Angeles Superior Court to the related employment case pending in the Eastern District of California.

Following the Company's press release on January 30, 2017, three putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company and its former officers, Mark A. DiBlasi and Peter R. Armbruster. On May 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions under the caption In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144), and appointed Public Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 12, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”) on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between March 14, 2013 and January 30, 2017, inclusive. The CAC alleges (i) the Company and Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and (ii) Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster, the Company’s former Chairman Scott Rued, HCI Equity Partners, L.L.C., and HCI Equity Management, L.P. violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making or causing to be made materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts, regarding (a) the accuracy of the Company’s financial statements; (b) the Company’s true earnings and expenses; (c) the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and controls over financial reporting; (d) the true nature and depth of financial risk associated with the Company’s tractor lease guaranty program; (e) the Company’s leverage ratios and compliance with its credit facilities; and (f) the value of the goodwill the Company carried on its balance sheet. The CAC seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

On May 25, 2017, Richard Flanagan filed a complaint alleging derivative claims on the Company's behalf in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin (Case No. 17-cv-004401) against Scott Rued, Mark DiBlasi, Christopher Doerr, John Kennedy, III, Brian Murray, James Staley, Curtis Stoelting, William Urkiel, Judith Vijums, Michael Ward, Chad Utrup, Ivor Evans, Peter Armbruster, and Brian van Helden. Count I of the Complaint alleges the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by “knowingly failing to ensure that the Company implemented and maintained adequate internal controls over its accounting and financial reporting functions,” and seeks unspecified damages. Count II of the Complaint alleges the Officer Defendants DiBlasi, Armbruster, and van Helden received substantial performance-based compensation and bonuses for fiscal year 2014 that should be disgorged. The action has been stayed by agreement pending a decision on an anticipated motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint filed in the securities class action described above.

On June 28, 2017, Jesse Kent filed a complaint alleging derivative claims on the Company's behalf and class action claims in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On December 22, 2017, Chester County Employees Retirement Fund filed a Complaint alleging derivative claims on the Company's behalf in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On March 21, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the Kent and Chester County actions under the caption In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00893). On March 28, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint alleging claims on behalf of the Company against Peter Armbruster, Mark DiBlasi, Scott Dobak, Christopher Doerr, Ivor Evans, Brian van Helden, John Kennedy, III, Ralph Kittle, Brian Murray, Scott Rued, James Staley, Curtis Stoelting, William Urkiel, Chad Utrup, Judith Vijums, and Michael Ward. Count I alleges that several of the Defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 based upon alleged misrepresentations and omissions in several of the Company’s proxy statements. Count II alleges that all the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty. Count III alleges that all the Defendants wasted corporate assets. Count IV alleges that certain of the Defendants were unjustly enriched. The Complaint seeks monetary damages, improvements to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, an accounting from Defendants of the damages allegedly

caused by them and the improper amounts the Defendants allegedly obtained, and punitive damages.

In addition, subsequent to the Company's announcement that certain previously filed financial statements should not be relied upon, the Company was contacted by the SEC, FINRA, and the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice and Division of Enforcement of the SEC have commenced investigations into the events giving rise to the restatement. The Company has received formal requests for documents and other information. The Company is cooperating fully with all of these agencies.

The Company is unable to estimate the costs associated with the above matters at this time.

11. Related Party Transactions

The Company had an advisory agreement with HCI that required the Company to pay transaction fees and an annual advisory fee of $0.1 million . The Company paid an aggregate of $0.2 million to HCI for advisory fees and travel expenses during the six months ended June 30, 2016 . On May 2, 2017, the Company and HCI entered into a Termination Agreement in which HCI waived the Company’s payment of any and all unpaid fees and expenses accrued under the advisory agreement through May 2, 2017.

The Investment Agreement with Elliott required the Company to pay Elliott a daily payment in an amount equal to $33,333.33 per calendar day from the closing date until the Refinancing Date. The Company paid $2.0 million under this agreement for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 .

One of the Company's operating companies contracts with certain purchased transportation providers that are owned by employees of that operating company. The Company paid an aggregate of $3.1 million and $1.8 million to these purchased transportation providers during the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 , respectively. The Company paid an aggregate of $5.7 million and $3.5 million to these purchased transportation providers during the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 , respectively.

The Company has a number of facility leases with related parties and paid an aggregate of $0.8 million and $0.7 million under these leases during the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 , respectively. The Company paid an aggregate of $1.5 million and $1.3 million under these leases during the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 , respectively.

During the three months ended June 30, 2016 , the Company entered into and completed a sale leaseback transaction to sell a combined office and warehouse facility to an entity controlled by a former owner and current manager of an operating company for a total sale price of $3.5 million .

The Company leases certain equipment through leasing companies owned by related parties and paid an aggregate of $0.3 million and $0.2 million during the during the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 , respectively. The Company paid an aggregate of $0.6 million and $0.2 million during the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 , respectively.

The Company received dividend payments from Great Republic Indemnity, an insurance captive, of $2.5 million during the six months ended June 30, 2017 . The Company did not receive any such dividends for the three months ended June 30, 2017 . The Company received dividend payments of $1.3 million and $1.8 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 , respectively.

12. Segment Reporting

The Company determines its segments based on the information utilized by the chief operating decision maker, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, to allocate resources and assess performance. Based on this information, the Company has determined that it has three segments: TL, LTL, and Ascent.

These segments are strategic business units through which the Company offers different services. The Company evaluates the performance of the segments primarily based on their respective revenues and operating income. Accordingly, interest expense and other non-operating items are not reported in segment results. In addition, the Company has disclosed corporate, which is not a segment and includes legal expenses, corporate salaries, and share-based compensation expense.

The following table reflects certain financial data of the Company’s segments for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 and as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 (in thousands):

(1) Eliminations represents intercompany trade receivable balances between the three segments.

13. Subsequent Events

ABL Facility

On July 21, 2017, the Company entered into the ABL Facility with BMO Harris Bank, N.A. and certain other lenders. The proceeds from the ABL Facility were used to redeem all of the outstanding shares of the Series E Preferred Stock and working capital purposes. The ABL Facility matures on July 21, 2022.

The ABL Facility consists of a:

The Company initially borrowed $141.7 million under the revolving line of credit and $56.8 million under the term loan facility. Borrowings under the ABL Facility are secured by substantially all of the assets of the Company. Principal on the term loan facility is due in quarterly installments commencing on March 31, 2018. Borrowings under the ABL Facility bear interest at either the (a) LIBOR Rate (as defined in the credit agreement) plus an applicable margin in the range of 1.5% to 2.25% , or (b) the Base Rate (as defined in the credit agreement) plus an applicable margin in the range of 0.5% to 1.25% . The ABL Facility contains a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio financial covenant that must be maintained when excess availability falls below a specified amount. In addition, the ABL Facility contains negative covenants limiting, among other things, additional indebtedness, transactions with affiliates, additional liens, sales of assets, dividends, investments and advances, prepayments of debt, mergers and acquisitions, and other matters customarily restricted. The ABL Facility also contains customary events of default, including payment defaults, breaches of representations and warranties, covenant defaults, events of bankruptcy and insolvency, failure of any guaranty or security document supporting the credit agreement to be in full force and effect, and a change of control of the Company's business.

On December 15, 2017, the Company entered into a First Amendment to the ABL Facility. Pursuant to the First Amendment the ABL Facility was amended to (i) reduce the maximum borrowing amount under the revolving line of credit by $15.0 million and (ii) terminate the asset-based facility available to finance future capital expenditures.

On January 30, 2018, the Company entered into a Second Amendment to the ABL Facility. Pursuant to the Second Amendment the ABL Facility was further amended to, among other things: (i) permit the Company to enter into an investment agreement with Elliott providing for the issuance of up to $52.5 million of preferred stock; and (ii) increase the applicable margin related to the term loan facility to LIBOR Rate plus 2.25% or Base Rate plus 1.25% .

On March 14, 2018, the Company entered into a Third Amendment to the ABL Facility. Pursuant to the Third Amendment the ABL Facility was further amended to, among other things: (i) extend the date for delivery of the Company's consolidated financial statements for the first three quarters of 2017 (unaudited) until April 30, 2018; (ii) extend the date for delivery of the Company's consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2017 (audited) until June 30, 2018; (iii) expand the permitted amount of capital leases and purchase money indebtedness from $35.0 million to $60.0 million ; (iv) impose a requirement that the Company obtain a new appraisal for the vehicles pledged for the term loan within 60 days; (v) establish an additional availability reserve; and (vi) impose certain collateral reporting requirements.

Sale of Unitrans

On September 15, 2017, Ascent sold all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Unitrans, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ascent, pursuant to the terms of a Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 16, 2017. The Company received net proceeds of $88.5 million and recognized a gain of $35.4 million . The proceeds from the sale were used to redeem a portion of the Series E Preferred Stock and to provide funding for operations. As of June 30, 2017 , Unitrans Inc. did not meet the criteria to be classified as held for sale and accordingly, its results are presented within the Company's Ascent segment results from continuing operations.

Enactment of US Tax Reform

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into United States law, and most changes are effective as of January 1, 2018. The law includes various provisions that will affect corporations, including a reduction of the corporate income tax rate from a 35% maximum rate to a 21% flat rate, enhanced “bonus depreciation” for capital equipment purchases, limitations on interest expense deductions, changes to net operating loss carryback and carryforward rules, and changes to US taxation of foreign profits. The corporate tax rate reduction is expected to result in a discrete tax benefit during the three months ended December 31, 2017 as a result of recalculating the carrying value of the Company's deferred tax assets and liabilities. The Company

is in the process of reviewing and analyzing the law in detail, and will provide an update regarding its impact on the business and the Company's consolidated financial statements in subsequent filings.

Series E-1 Preferred Stock Investment Agreement

On March 1, 2018, the Company entered into the Series E-1 Preferred Stock Investment Agreement with Elliott, pursuant to which the Company agreed to issue and sell to Elliott from time to time until July 30, 2018, an aggregate of up to 54,750 shares of a newly created class of Series E-1 Preferred Stock at a purchase price of $1,000 per share for the first 17,500 shares of Series E-1 Preferred Stock, $960 per share for the next 18,228 shares of Series E-1 Preferred Stock, and $920 per share for the final 19,022 shares of Series E-1 Preferred Stock. On March 1, 2018, the parties held an initial closing pursuant to which the Company issued and sold to Elliott 17,500 shares of Series E-1 Preferred Stock for an aggregate purchase price of $17.5 million . The proceeds of the sale of such shares of Series E-1 Preferred Stock will be used to provide working capital to support the Company’s current operations and future growth. Certain terms of the Series E-1 Preferred Stock are as follows:

Rank . The Series E-1 Preferred Stock, with respect to payment of dividends, redemption payments, rights (including as to the distribution of assets) upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the affairs of the Company, or otherwise, ranks (i) senior and prior to the Company’s common stock and other junior securities, and (ii) on parity with the Series B Preferred Stock, Series C Preferred Stock, Series D Preferred Stock, and the Series E Preferred Stock.

Liquidation Value . Each share of Series E-1 Preferred Stock has an initial liquidation preference equal to $1,000 per share, plus accrued and unpaid dividends on such share (the “Series E-1 Liquidation Value”).

Dividends . Dividends are cumulative from May 2, 2017, which was the date of the Company’s original issuance of shares of preferred stock to Elliott (such date, the “Original Issuance Date”), as a percentage of the Series E-1 Liquidation Value as and when declared by the Company’s Board of Directors and accrue and compound if not paid in cash. Dividends accrue daily and compound quarterly, subject to any adjustments for Triggering Events (as defined in the Series E-1 Certificate of Designations). The annual dividend rate for the shares of Series E-1 Preferred Stock is equal to the sum of (i) Adjusted LIBOR (as defined in the Series E-1 Certificate of Designations), plus (ii) 5.25% per annum, plus (iii) an additional rate of 8.5% . The dividend rate increases by 3.0% per annum above the rates described in the preceding sentence upon and during any Triggering Events. Holders of shares of Series E-1 Preferred Stock are not entitled to participate in dividends or distributions of any nature paid on or in respect of the Common Stock.

Redemption at Maturity . On the sixth anniversary of the Original Issuance Date, the Company will have the obligation to redeem all outstanding shares of Series E-1 Preferred Stock for cash at the Series E-1 Liquidation Value.

Optional Redemption . The Company may redeem the shares of Series E-1 Preferred Stock at any time. The redemption of shares of Series E-1 Preferred Stock shall be at a purchase price per share, payable in cash, equal to (i) in the case of a an optional redemption effected on or after the 24 month anniversary of the Original Issuance Date, the Series E-1 Liquidation Value, (ii) in the case of an optional redemption effected on or after the 12 month anniversary of the Original Issuance Date and prior to the 24 month anniversary of the Original Issuance Date, 103.5% of the Series E-1 Liquidation Value and (iii) in the case of an optional redemption effected prior to the 12 month anniversary of the Original Issuance Closing Date, 106.5% of the Series E-1 Liquidation Value.

Change of Control . Upon the occurrence of a Change of Control (as defined in the Series E-1 Certificate of Designations), the holders of Series E-1 Preferred Stock may require redemption by the Company of the Series E-1 Preferred Stock at a purchase price per share, payable in cash, equal to either (i)  106.5% of the Series E-1 Liquidation Value if the Change of Control occurs prior to the 24 month anniversary of the Original Issuance Date, or (ii) the Series E-1 Liquidation Value if the Change of Control occurs after the 24 month anniversary of the Original Issuance Date.

Voting . The holders of Series E-1 Preferred Stock will generally not be entitled to vote on any matters submitted to a vote of the stockholders of the Company. So long as any shares of Series E-1 Preferred Stock are outstanding, the Company may not take certain actions without the prior approval of the Preferred Requisite Vote, voting as a separate class.