NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 1 — Introduction and Basis of Presentation

Certain acronyms and terms used throughout this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are specific to our company, commonly used in our industry, or are otherwise frequently used throughout our document. Definitions for these acronyms and terms are provided in the "Glossary of Terms," available in the front of this document.

Description of Business

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2015, the Company's fleet of revenue equipment included 19,535 tractors (comprised of 14,680 company tractors and 4,855 owner-operator tractors), 61,780 trailers and 9,150 intermodal containers. The Company’s four reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Central Refrigerated and Intermodal.

Seasonality

In the truckload industry, results of operations generally show a seasonal pattern. As customers ramp up for the holiday season at year-end, the late third and fourth quarters have historically been the Company's strongest volume quarters. As customers reduce shipments after the winter holiday season, the first quarter has historically been a lower volume quarter than the other three quarters. In recent years, the macro consumer buying patterns combined with shippers’ supply chain management, which historically contributed to the fourth quarter “peak” season, continued to evolve. As a result, the Company's fourth quarter 2014, 2013 and 2012 volumes were more evenly disbursed throughout the quarter rather than peaking early in the quarter. In the eastern and mid-western United States, and to a lesser extent in the western United States, during the winter season the Company's equipment utilization typically declines and operating expenses generally increase, with fuel efficiency declining because of engine idling and severe weather sometimes creating higher accident frequency, increased claims, and more equipment repairs. Revenue may also be affected by holidays as a result of curtailed operations or vacation shutdowns, because the Company's revenue is directly related to available working days of shippers. From time to time, the Company also suffers short-term impacts from severe weather and similar events, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, ice storms, floods, fires, earthquakes, and explosions that could add volatility to or harm the Company's results of operations.

Basis of Presentation

The consolidated financial statements and footnotes included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and footnotes included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 . The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Swift Transportation Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. In management's opinion, these financial statements were prepared in accordance with principles generally accepted in the United States and include all adjustments necessary for the fair presentation of the periods presented.

Changes in Presentation

Beginning in 2015, the Company separately presents excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation within "Net cash provided by operating activities" in the consolidated statements of cash flows. The prior period presentation has been retrospectively adjusted to reclassify the amount out of "Accounts payable, accrued and other liabilities" and into the new line item "Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation."  The change in presentation has no net impact on “Net cash provided by operating activities."

Also beginning in 2015, the Company presents gross amounts of its investment in securities activities as "Proceeds from maturities of investments" and "Purchases of investments" in the consolidated statements of cash flows. The prior period presentation has been retrospectively adjusted to accommodate this gross presentation. The change in presentation has no net impact on "Net cash used in investing activities."

Beginning in 2015, the Company has disaggregated "Operating revenue" in the consolidated income statements into the line items "Revenue, excluding fuel surcharge revenue" and "Fuel surcharge revenue." The change in presentation has no net impact on "Operating revenue."

Note 2 — Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2015, FASB issued ASU 2015-03, Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs , which amends ASC Subtopic 835-30, Interest — Imputation of Interest. The amendments in this ASU simplify the presentation of debt issuance costs and align the presentation with debt discounts. Entities will be required to present debt issuance costs as a direct deduction from the face amount of the related note, rather than as a deferred charge. Upon adoption, the amended guidance will affect Swift's classification of debt issuance costs, which are currently classified in "Other assets" in the consolidated balance sheets. The reclassification of debt

issuance costs will effectively decrease "Other assets" and correspondingly decrease the respective long-term debt balances. The amendments in this ASU require retrospective application, with related disclosures for a change in accounting principle. Upon adoption, the Company will comply with these disclosure requirements by providing the nature and reason for the change, the transition method, a description of the adjusted prior period information and the effect of the change on the financial statement line items. For public business entities, the amendments in this ASU will be effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015, and the interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted; however, the Company expects to adopt this guidance at the beginning of 2016.

In February 2015, FASB issued ASU 2015-02, Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis , which amends ASC Topic 810, Consolidation , by changing the analysis that reporting entities are required to perform to determine whether certain types of legal entities should be consolidated. The amendments in this ASU focus on limited partnerships and similar legal entities (such as limited liability companies); however, all legal entities are subject to reevaluation under the revised consolidation model. The revised consolidation model modifies the evaluation of whether limited partnerships and similar legal entities are variable interest entities or voting interest entities, and eliminates the presumption that a general partner should consolidate a limited partnership. It also affects the consolidation analysis of reporting entities that are involved with variable interest entities, especially those that have fee arrangements and related-party relationships. The amendments in the ASU also affect certain investment funds. For public business entities, the amendments in this ASU are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015, and the interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. Entities may use a retrospective approach, or a modified retrospective approach by recording a cumulative-effect adjustment to equity as of the beginning of the year of adoption. The Company is currently evaluating the accounting, transition and disclosure requirements of the standard and cannot currently estimate the financial statement impact of adoption.

Note 3 — Restricted Investments

The following table presents the cost or amortized cost, gross unrealized gains and temporary losses, and estimated fair value of the Company’s restricted investments as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 (in thousands): 

As of March 31, 2015 , the contractual maturities of the restricted investments were one year or less. There were 11 securities and 24 securities that were in an unrealized loss position for less than twelve months as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , respectively. The Company did not recognize any impairment losses for the three months ended March 31, 2015 or 2014 .

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) — CONTINUED

Note 4 — Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets

There were no goodwill impairments recorded during the three months ended March 31, 2015 or 2014. Intangible assets as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 were as follows (in thousands):

The following table presents amortization of intangibles for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 , related to intangible assets recognized in conjunction with the 2007 going private transaction and the previous intangible assets existing prior to the 2007 going private transaction (in thousands):

Note 5 — Accounts Receivable Securitization

In June 2013, SRCII entered into the 2013 RSA with the Purchasers to replace the Company's prior 2011 RSA, and to sell, on a revolving basis, undivided interests in the Company’s accounts receivable. Pursuant to the 2013 RSA, the Company’s receivable originator subsidiaries sell all of their eligible accounts receivable to SRCII, which in turn sells a variable percentage ownership interest in its accounts receivable to the Purchasers. On September 26, 2014, the Company exercised an accordion option, increasing the maximum borrowing capacity on the 2013 RSA from $325.0 million to $375.0 million . The Company entered into an amendment to the 2013 RSA, effective March 31, 2015, to clarify when the Company’s consent is required in conjunction with a Purchaser’s sale or assignment of any portion of its purchased interest in the receivables and to amend certain of the performance ratios to provide increased flexibility to the Company in managing its receivables.

The facility qualifies for treatment as a secured borrowing under ASC Topic 860, Transfers and Servicing. As such, outstanding amounts are classified as liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets in "Securitization of accounts receivable."

As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, interest accrues on the aggregate principal balance at a rate of 0.8% and 0.8% , respectively. Program fees and unused commitment fees are recorded in interest expense in the Company's consolidated income statements. The Company incurred program fees of $1.0 million and $0.8 million , during the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The 2013 RSA is subject to customary fees and contains various customary affirmative and negative covenants, representations and warranties, and default and termination provisions. Collections on the underlying receivables by the Company are held for the benefit of SRCII and the Purchasers in the facility and are unavailable to satisfy claims of the Company and its subsidiaries.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) — CONTINUED

Note 6 — Debt and Financing

Other than the Company’s accounts receivable securitization, as discussed in Note 5, and its outstanding capital lease obligations as discussed in Note 7, the Company's long-term debt consisted of the following (in thousands):

____________

The Revolver and Term Loan A of the 2014 Agreement contain certain financial covenants with respect to a maximum leverage ratio and a minimum consolidated interest coverage ratio. The 2014 Agreement provides flexibility regarding the use of proceeds from asset sales, payment of dividends, stock buybacks, and equipment financing. In addition to the financial covenants, the 2014 Agreement includes customary events of default, including a change in control default and certain affirmative and negative covenants, including, but not limited to, restrictions, subject to certain exceptions, on incremental indebtedness, asset sales, certain restricted payments (including dividends), certain incremental investments or advances, transactions with affiliates, engaging in additional business activities, and prepayments of certain other indebtedness.

Borrowings under the credit facility are secured by substantially all of the assets of the Company and are guaranteed by Swift Transportation Company, IEL, Central Refrigerated Transportation, LLC and its subsidiaries, Swift Transportation Co., LLC and its domestic subsidiaries other than its captive insurance subsidiaries, driver academy subsidiary, and its bankruptcy-remote special purpose subsidiary.

Deferred Loan Costs and Loss on Debt Extinguishment

Deferred loan costs, reported in "Other assets" in the Company's consolidated balance sheets, were $9.7 million and $10.4 million , as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , respectively.

For the three months ended March 31, 2015, the Company did not incur any loss on debt extinguishment. For the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company incurred a $2.9 million loss on debt extinguishment related to the Company's repurchase of its Senior Notes.

Note 7 — Leases

The Company finances a portion of its revenue equipment under capital and operating leases and certain terminals under operating leases.

Capital - The Company’s capital leases are typically structured with balloon payments at the end of the lease term equal to the residual value the Company is contracted to receive from certain equipment manufacturers upon sale or trade back to the manufacturers. If the Company does not receive proceeds of the contracted residual value from the manufacturer, the Company is still obligated to make the balloon payment at the end of the lease term. Certain leases contain renewal or fixed price purchase options. The present value of obligations under capital leases is included under "Current portion of capital lease obligations" and "Capital lease obligations, less current portion" in the consolidated balance sheets. As of March 31, 2015 , the leases were collateralized by revenue equipment with a cost of $266.7 million and accumulated amortization of $71.6 million . As of December 31, 2014 , the leases were collateralized by revenue equipment with a cost of $270.6 million and accumulated amortization of $68.0 million . Amortization of the equipment under capital leases is included in "Depreciation and amortization of property and equipment" in the Company’s consolidated income statements.

Operating - Rent expense related to operating leases was $62.0 million and $51.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Note 8 — Purchase Commitments

As of March 31, 2015, the Company had commitments outstanding to acquire revenue equipment for the remainder of 2015 for approximately $705.5 million ( $569.4 million of which were tractor commitments) and in 2016 to 2017 for approximately $380.5 million (all of which were tractor commitments). The Company generally has the option to cancel tractor purchase orders with 60 to 90 days notice prior to the scheduled production, although the notice period has lapsed for approximately 31.3% of the tractor commitments outstanding as of March 31, 2015. These purchases are expected to be financed by the combination of operating leases, capital leases, debt, proceeds from sales of existing equipment and cash flows from operations.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company had outstanding purchase commitments of approximately $8.6 million for facilities and non-revenue equipment. Factors such as costs and opportunities for future terminal expansions may change the amount of such expenditures.

Note 9 — Contingencies

The Company is involved in certain claims and pending litigation primarily arising in the normal course of business. The majority of these claims relate to workers' compensation, auto collision and liability, and physical damage and cargo damage. The Company expenses legal fees as incurred and accrues for the uninsured portion of contingent losses from these and other pending claims when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Based on the knowledge of the facts and, in certain cases, advice of outside counsel, management believes the resolution of claims and pending litigation, taking into account existing reserves, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future as the litigation and events related thereto unfold.

For certain cases described below, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals; and/or (v) there are significant

factual issues to be resolved. For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Arizona Owner-operator Class Action Litigation

On January 30, 2004 , a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CV7-472 ("the Garza Complaint"). The putative class originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff’s petition for class certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision reversing the trial court’s denial of class certification and remanding the case back to the trial court. On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company’s petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to reverse the trial court’s original denial of class certification and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further evaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles driven. On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motions in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class representative, and because the named owner-operator class representative only contracted with the Company for a three-month period under a one-year contract that no longer exists. In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court. On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals. In April 2012, the trial court issued the following rulings with respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift’s motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift’s request to decertify the class; (3) granted Swift’s motion that there is no breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift’s motion to limit class size based on statute of limitations. On November 13, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion to add new class representatives for the employee class and therefore the employee class remains without a plaintiff class representative. On March 18, 2015, the court denied Swift's two motions for summary judgment 1) to dismiss any claims related to the employee class since there is no class representative; and 2) to dismiss plaintiff's claim of breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Swift filed a motion to decertify the entire class which remains pending before the court. The matter is scheduled for trial in October 2015. The Company intends to continue to pursue all available appellate relief supported by the record, which the Company believes demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and, further, that the claims raised have no merit. The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time.

Ninth Circuit Owner-operator Misclassification Class Action Litigation

On December 22, 2009 , a class action lawsuit was filed against Swift Transportation and IEL: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer , individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 9-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("the Sheer Complaint"). The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and various New York and California state laws and that such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs, approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have joined this lawsuit. Upon Swift’s motion, the matter has been transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court in Arizona. On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the potential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30, 2010, the District Court granted Swift’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. The District Court further denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and motion for conditional class certification. The District Court also denied plaintiff’s request to arbitrate the matter as a class.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the District Court’s September 30, 2010 order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus and thereafter the District Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and certified its September 30, 2010 order. The plaintiffs

filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the District Court’s September 30, 2010 order to compel arbitration, alleging that the agreement to arbitrate is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) because the class of plaintiffs allegedly consists of employees exempt from arbitration agreements. On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, stating its prior published decision, “expressly held that a district court must determine whether an agreement for arbitration is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA as a threshold matter." As a consequence of this determination by the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals being different from a decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on February 4, 2014, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to address whether the district court or arbitrator should determine whether the contract is an employment contract exempt from Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the Company’s petition for writ of certiorari. The matter remains pending in the District Court and is currently in discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend against any proceedings. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time.

California Wage, Meal and Rest Employee Class Actions

On March 22, 2010 , a class action lawsuit was filed by John Burnell , individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Bernardino ("the Burnell Complaint"). On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The putative class includes drivers who worked for Swift during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that Swift failed to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment. The Burnell Complaint was subject to a stay of proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case unrelated to Swift, Brinker v. Hohnbaum, which was then pending before the California Supreme Court. A ruling was entered in the Brinker matter and in August 2012 the stay in the Burnell Complaint was lifted. On April 9, 2013 the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings requesting dismissal of plaintiff's claims related to alleged meal and rest break violations under the California Labor Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. On May 29, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's claims that are based on alleged violations of meal and rest periods set forth in the California Labor Code. Plaintiff has appealed. Minimum wage claims (specifically that pay per-mile fails to compensate drivers for non-driving-related services), timeliness of such pay and the issue of class certification remain pending.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in the Burnell Complaint. This class action is James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino ("the Rudsell Complaint"). The Rudsell Complaint has been stayed pending a resolution in the Burnell Complaint.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a determination of class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend certification of the class in both matters, as well as the merits of these matters, should the classes be certified. The final disposition of both cases and the impact of such final dispositions of these cases cannot be determined at this time. There have been no significant developments to these cases since December 31, 2014.

California Wage and Hour Class Action

On September 25, 2014 , a class action lawsuit was filed by Lawrence Peck on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Peck v. Swift Transportation Co. Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside ("the Peck Complaint"). The putative class includes current and former non-exempt employee truck drivers who performed services in California within the four-year statutory period alleging that Swift failed to pay for all hours worked (specifically that pay-per-mile fails to compensate drivers for non-driving related services), failed to pay overtime, failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses, failed to timely pay wages and failed to provide accurate wage statements.

Peck is currently stayed, pending a resolution in the Burnell and Rudsell cases, based on the similarity of the Peck claims to the claims in those earlier filed cases. The final disposition of the case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time.

Washington Overtime Class Action

On September 9, 2011 , a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy Slack and several other drivers on behalf of themselves, and all similarly situated persons, against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County ("the Slack Complaint"). The Slack Complaint was removed to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-114380. The putative class includes all current and former Washington State-based employee drivers during the three-year statutory period prior to the filing of the lawsuit through to present

and alleges that they were not paid minimum wage and overtime in accordance with Washington State law and that they suffered unlawful deductions from wages. On November 23, 2013, the court entered an order on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. The court only certified the class as it pertains to "dedicated" drivers and did not certify any other class, including any class related to over the road drivers (“OTR Drivers”). The parties dispute the definition of "dedicated" as used by the court and a class notice has not yet been issued. The matter is now anticipated to move into discovery. The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend the merits of these claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time.

Utah Collective and Individual Arbitration

On June 1, 2012 , a collective and class action complaint was filed by Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually and on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons against Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes: Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually and on behalf themselves and all similarly situated persons v. Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. ED CV 12-00886 ("the Cilluffo Complaint"). The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Central misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the FLSA, and that such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit also raises a claim of forced labor and state law contractual claims. On September 24, 2012, the California District Court ordered that the FLSA claim proceed to collective arbitration under the Utah Uniform Arbitration Act (“UUAA”) and not the FAA. The September 24, 2012 order directed the arbitrator to determine the validity of proceeding as a collective arbitration under the UUAA, and then if the arbitrator determines that such collective action is permitted, then the arbitrator is to consider the plaintiff’s FLSA claim. On November 8, 2012, the California District Court entered a clarification order clarifying that the plaintiff’s FLSA claim was to proceed to collective arbitration under the UUAA, but the plaintiff’s forced labor claim and state law contractual claims were to proceed as individual arbitrations for those plaintiffs seeking to pursue those specific claims. Central filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for interlocutory appeal of the California District Court’s orders, both of which were denied and the claims are proceeding to collective and individual arbitration as originally ordered. On December 9, 2013, the arbitrator determined that the issue of misclassification as it relates to the FLSA will proceed as a collective arbitration; however, the plaintiffs forced labor claim and state law claims of contractual misrepresentation and breach of contract must proceed on an individual arbitration basis and not as a class. The matter is currently in discovery.

Central intends to vigorously defend collective arbitration in the Cilluffo Complaint, as well as the merits of the FLSA claim and any individual arbitration matters that are filed, and proceed on the forced labor and state contract law claims. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time.

Environmental Notice

On April 17, 2009 , the Company received a notice from the Lower Willamette Group ("LWG"), advising that there was a total of 250 potentially responsible parties ("PRPs"), with respect to alleged environmental contamination of the Lower Willamette River in Portland, Oregon designated as the Portland Harbor Superfund site ("the Site"), and that as a previous landowner at the Site, the Company was asked to join a group of 60 PRPs and proportionately contribute to (i) reimbursement of funds expended by LWG to investigate environmental contamination at the Site and (ii) remediation costs of the same, rather than be exposed to potential litigation. Although the Company does not believe it contributed any contaminants to the Site, the Company was at one time the owner of property at the Site and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act imposes a standard of strict liability on property owners with respect to environmental claims. Notwithstanding this standard of strict liability, management believes the Company's potential proportionate exposure to be minimal and not material. No formal complaint has been filed in this matter. The Company’s pollution liability insurer has been notified of this potential claim. Management does not believe the outcome of this matter is likely to have a material adverse effect on Swift. However, the final disposition of this matter and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time. There have been no significant developments pertaining to this matter since December 31, 2014.

Other Environmental

The Company's tractors and trailers are involved in motor vehicle accidents, experience damage, mechanical failures and cargo issues as an incidental part of its normal ordinary course of operations.  From time to time, these matters result in the discharge of diesel fuel, motor oil or other hazardous materials into the environment.  Depending on local regulations and who is determined to be at fault, the Company is sometimes responsible for the clean-up costs associated with these discharges.  As of March 31, 2015, the Company's estimate for its total legal liability for all such clean-up and remediation costs was approximately $0.4 million in the aggregate for all current and prior year claims. 

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) — CONTINUED

Note 10 — Derivative Financial Instruments

The following table presents pre-tax losses from changes in fair value of the Company's interest rate swaps, included in earnings (in thousands):

As of March 31, 2015 , $2.1 million of deferred losses on derivatives in AOCI are expected to be reclassified to earnings within the next 12 months. There were no losses recognized in AOCI from the effective portion of cash flow hedges during the three months ended March 31, 2015 or 2014.

Losses on cash flow hedging, reclassified out of AOCI into the consolidated income statements were as follows (in thousands):

Activities related to AOCI net of tax, are presented in the consolidated statement of stockholders' equity, and primarily pertain to derivative financial instruments. The tax effects are presented in the consolidated statements of comprehensive income. Activities related to foreign currency transactions were immaterial for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014.

Note 11 — Fair Value Measurement

The following table presents the carrying amounts and estimated fair values of the Company’s financial instruments as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 (in thousands): 

The carrying amounts shown in the table (other than restricted investments and securitization of accounts receivable) are included in the consolidated balance sheets in "Current portion of long-term debt" and "Long-term debt, less current portion."

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) — CONTINUED