Airborne Racketeering Proof

CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF
Pursuant to the Order of the Arbitration Panel,Claimant Assured Transportation Services,
Inc.("Assured")submits its Post-Hearing Brief as follows :
I .PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
A microcosm of this case and Airborne's world view could be found in the first few
minutes of Betsy Bacon's testimony at the hearing of this matter -that small changes in sort
procedures could,when multiplied over the scale of a station operation,have a significant effect
on costs .Indeed,Bacon's testimony reflects the ingrained corporate culture of Airborne .
Unfortunately,even the best character traits of an individual or an organization can inflict harm
when their power is wielded unwisely .Driven by the maxim that small changes are multiplied into
big time savings,Airborne also learned that the theft of small change multiplies into big dollar
savings.
In the vein of giving the devil his due,Airborne's complex system was truly nothing short
of genius .A system so complex and designed so cleverly to lighten the pockets of contractors at
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page I

CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF
every turn that its dastardly plan was almost unbelievable .However,the circumstances drawn
together with the admissions of intention in the BAG report and the testimony of corporate
purpose by Ms .Bacon have made the unbelievable now undeniable .
Notably,Airborne has not denied that it underpaid contractors or misstated bid packages .
Rather,it simply seeks to minimize the events,dismissively waving a corporate hand at the errata
of a large system .By this brief Assured does not seek to rehash the hearing of this matter,but
rather to direct the Panel's attention to the evidence which show that Airborne's actions were
intentional and malicious and that Assured's claims are meritorious in all respects .That evidence
shows that Airborne systemically defrauded Assured through misleading bid packages and
through intentional mismanagement of the FCI System -a system which it would then hide behind
as infallible .Intention will also be shown in how the system was manipulated and in how the
magnitude of mismanagement diminished markedly when Airborne realized that it was being
watched.Finally,like the pickpocket who gets caught only after stealing from a hundred unwary
clients,recompense to one victim simply illuminates the profitability of the scheme .This Panel
should severely sanction Airborne's conduct .
In the end,Airborne has argued mightily that the number of unaccounted for shipments is
rather small and that the effect of the thresholding process would render the damages minuscule .
However there are several fatal flaws to Airborne's position .First,the number of unaccounted
for shipments was quite significant,totalling hundreds of thousands of unaccounted for packages .
Ms.Collinsworth noted that this number had dwindled to only several dozen a month prior to the
end of the Assured-Airborne relationship,but it should be kept in mind that these numbers
dropped only when Assured had apparently figured out the game .Indeed,the precipitous drop in
Page 2

unaccounted shipments would appear to evidence the knowledge and malice of Airborne's
wrongdoing .Second,the thresholding rates applied by Airborne at penny threshold are limited in
time and furthermore an analysis of the weeks involved shows that there were few weeks where
the threshold rate was even reached .
II.BRIEF
1 .Factual Underpinnings to Liability
The evidence adduced at hearing showed that Airborne underpaid contractors in a
systematic fashion .The underpayment took several forms :open underpayments were those
payments for which Airborne claimed it was not obligated to pay under the relevant contractual
agreements and which appeared on FCI exception reports as unpaid shipments handled by
Assured;stolen payments were those shipments that were handled by Assured that were never
paid and never appeared on an exception report and the existence of which were not disclosed to
Assured;and in the form of bid fraud wherein Airborne underpaid contractors by defrauding them
into making bids that were significantly below Airborne's known cost to operate the station .
A.Stolen Payments
Most troubling of all of the evidence adduced during hearing of this matter was that
Airborne systemically caused shipments to "disappear"from paid and unpaid shipment reports .
Theoretically,these reports should have covered every package handled by Assured .However,
the Station Operating Summaries (exhibits 1243-46)produced by Airborne during the course of
this matter conclusively proved that the FCI and Orion reports provided to Assured consistently
understated the number of shipments being actually handled by Assured .The paper trail was then
pieced together to get a window into the nature of these missing shipments and how Airborne
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 3

removed them from the payment system .
There is a logical process of several steps which demonstrates that shipments were
wrongfully and unlawfully being removed from the FCI Payment system,resulting in the
intentional underpayment or theft of payments:
Proof that there are missing or unaccounted for shipments in the first place can be found
by a simple review of the Station Operating Summaries (exhibits 1243-46)which show a gap
between total revenue shipments handled by Assured compared with the farmed out shipments
shown on the same document .'
Having determined that there are,in fact,missing shipments that were handled by Assured,
Assured directs the Panel to an example that proves that these missing shipments do include ones
for which it is clear that Assured would have been paid had the shipments been properly handled
by Airborne .
Exhibit 1088 shows a pickup manifest,numbered 3700945,for shipments handled out of
Bloomington,including Assured handled shipments from Central Illinois Regional and DIT USA,
Inc.'The front page of the exhibit indicates that the manifest and its incorporated pickups are in
the Unassigned Local route (the colloquial "cookie jar"referenced at hearing).Exhibit 321
contains a listing of manifests and (three pages from the end)shows that pickup manifest 3700945
was closed as a UNA route.This action was done in contravention of Airborne's procedures as
'The associated gap is somewhat more complex than this simple review,consisting of a
number of shipment types.However,for purposes of laying a predicate,it does show the gap
between paid and unpaid shipments .
'The manifest also shows a shipment for Sigler (Precision Prosthetics),which like so many
other contractors was also being cheated out of revenue .
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 4

stated in exhibit 296 .A cursory review of exhibit 321 shows that 999 and UNA routes were
regularly closed .Accordingly,the evidence conclusively demonstrates that the missing shipments
referenced in step one included shipments that should have been paid to Assured and would have
been paid had they been included in the FCI system .'
Notably,Airborne does not seriously dispute that there were missing shipments .Rather,
Airborne focuses on its assertions that the shipment volume was not large,that any errors were
unintentional and that the payments per shipment would have been de minimis .
Assured responds to these specious excuses as follows:First,Airborne chose to highlight
months in which the shipment differential was in fact small .Those months were towards the end
of Assured's relationship with Airborne at a time when it knew that Assured had become aware of
the FCI Mismanagement.Indeed,rather than show that the numbers of missing shipments were
small,the evidence adduced by Airborne in this regard shows Airborne's bad faith and intent to
defraud .That is,the evidence shows that when it thought it was caught or might be caught,
Airborne backed off on its thieving process and reduced the numbers of missing shipments .'
Second,the hearing record is littered with evidence showing the incentives in place for
Airborne and its employees to engage in this type of mismanagement.The Business Analysis
'Assured does not address every circumstance of mismanagement and missing shipments
for several reasons .First,to do so,even on the limited evidence available to Assured,would
expand the length of this brief and related documentation enormously .Second,a great portion of
the evidence remains at Airborne's disposal .Airborne claims that the relevant information is no
longer available .However,Airborne showed at the hearing an innate ability to obtain dated,
precise information within a matter of minutes and the spoliation of any evidence presents a
presumption against Airborne.Marshall v.Bally's Pacwest,Inc .,972 P .2d 475,480 (Wash.App .
1999).
'In Peoria,the shipment differentials dropped from a high of 20,714 shipments to 27 and
then 153 in the final quarter .
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 5

Group Study shows the consistent and unabashed bent of Airborne to drive down costs in any
way possible,to treat contractors in bad faith and to leave them in the dark regarding shipments .'
This behavior,experienced by Assured and confirmed by Erich Hambacher's ("Hambacher")
testimony,provides the bad faith background as well as the motive for Airborne to steal from its
contractors .
On an individual level,Airborne employees in the field were bonused based on lowering
shipment costs -which was apparently achieved by having contractors unknowingly deliver
shipments for free because of manipulation of the computer systems ."When questioned about the
system,contractors were told it was infallible and that hand counts were worthless .'Yet,high-
level Airborne executives admitted in internal emails that the hand counts were the only way to
get an accurate count on the contractor side .'Hambacher testified that he conducted hand counts
that regularly showed an 18-20%shipment differential and that were regularly dismissed by
Airborne as inaccurate .An even more stark example of the intent behind the system of criminal
theft can be found in the narrowing gap in the shipment differential_"As soon as Airborne
'See exhibits 1263,1282 ("Words like trust,integrity,fairness,professionalism are not
part of the vocabulary I would use to describe the current contracts dept situation,and afc will
suffer the loss in this area long term ."),1290 .
"Exhibits 1304 and 1305 .
7Harnbacher testimony .
'Exhibit 1290-
'It is difficult to understate the nature of Airborne's actions .Airborne's counsel took
great exception at hearing to the suggestion that any individual at Airborne would steal from a
contractor.Nonetheless,the facts remain as they are .The actions are nothing short of criminal
theft -the closing of a UNA route to prevent payment from getting to Assured and then
concealing the information can only be described as theft .
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 6

realized that Assured was aware of what was going on,it stopped stealing from Assured and then
terminated the contracts .This behavior was identical to what Hambacher's company suffered at
the hands of Airborne when Hambacher learned of the thefts and mistreatment .
Third,as for the de minimis amounts,Assured was not on a penny threshold system for
more than a period of months at Springfield and Decatur prior to the termination of the
contracts .'0 Furthermore,for many of the weeks at penny or other threshold amounts,Assured's
shipments had not met the threshold rate break ."Meanwhile,these thefts had gone on for years .
Furthermore,it seems absurd that Airborne should be able to steal shipments that should have
been paid under the contracts and then turn around and claim that those shipments should all be
compensated at a threshold contractual rate.Airborne only desires to play by the rules once it has
been caught and the rules then inure to their benefit .Moreover,Airborne spread its behavior over
300 independent contractors,tying each of them to a dauntingly expensive arbitration process .
Airborne's excuses are simply in furtherance of its efforts to reap the fruits of its corporate
philosophy that taking a little change can add up to a lot of dough .This Panel should sanction
this theft severely .
B.Open Underpayments
Open underpayments consisted of those items which were included on reports of paid and
unpaid shipments but which should have been paid pursuant to the terms of the relevant
S °See Schedule A's,exhibits 1047-48
"At trial,Airborne intimated that Assured's calculations were inaccurate because they did
not account for thresholding .Putting aside the applicability of that argument in general,Assured
notes that Airborne misrepresented the number of shipments handled by Decatur and Kankakee by
combining their numbers with their controlling stations to make it appear as though the base
number of shipments was met on a weekly basis,which was not true .
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 7

agreements.These include LIBRA Consolidations,COMAT's,Flight-Ready packages,Airborne
Counter packages,Other Consolidations,State Farm and other issues .
These matters were covered extensively at hearing and the relevant facts are precisely
detailed in the proposed findings of fact_On each of these matters,Airborne simply chose to
usurp the terms of the contracts at issue,an ironic turn of events given Airborne's efforts to wield
the contractual terms like a sword in other respects .
Extensive testimony was had about the counter shipments that were all handled,at some
level,by Assured and some were handled entirely by Assured at satellite stations such as Decatur .
Nonetheless,Airborne has unabashedly tried to retain all revenue for those shipments -despite the
(foiled)efforts of its own employees to have Assured paid for those shipments .Similarly,there
was extensive evidence regarding the abuse of COMAT's,improper manifesting of Flight Ready's
and other shipment types and the improper consolidation of LIBRA and other shipments .
Airborne made much of the language in the Schedule A's which it unilaterally changed,but
language elsewhere and Airborne's own use of the terms clearly indicated that a shipment was not
as it claimed to be and that Airborne treated each LIBRA package as an individual shipment for
which it charged the customer and received income .
C.Bid Fraud
As detailed at hearing of this matter,Airborne engaged in a repeated practice of bid fraud
with respect to new contracts .As it affected Assured,Airborne engaged in bid fraud with respect
to contracts on two stations within the limitations period asserted by Airborne .Airborne
misstated the amount of equipment and routes needed to service the station .Evidence adduced at
the hearing also demonstrated that this practice was not uncommon .Indeed,the BAG Report
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 8

contained statements from other contractors and Airborne management indicating that bid
packages were routinely off the mark by fifteen percent ."Again,this was part of Airborne's plan
to keep costs down .By misrepresenting the needs of the station,Airborne was able to secure
lower bids for any given contract .
Assured and Airborne entered into a contract for the station in Rockford on November 28,
1999 .After Assured began operations in Rockford,it found out that the specific customer needs
were grossly understated in the bid process by Airborne .Assured terminated the contract on
January 29,2001 because Assured was losing money at the station .More specifically,the hours
and routes needed to service the customers were understated by Airborne in the bid negotiations .
Airborne refused to make adjustments and Assured was forced to terminate the contract,suffering
significant losses in the process .
In August,2000,Assured was asked to bid on a new station that Airborne planned to
operate in Bloomington and was provided with a bid package which Airborne admitted at hearing
contained material misrepresentations.Among other things,the reports attached to the bid
package did not contain non-paid shipments that the successful bidder would be required to
handle,understating the number of shipments Assured was required to handle was understated by
at least fifteen percent .As a result of the misrepresentation by Airborne,Assured lost money in
Bloomington form the very inception of the contract .Furthermore,Airborne misrpresented the
amount of work required to service Bloomington's largest customer,State Farm Insurance .
Airborne made much of its willingness to renegotiate contracts,but as demonstrated at
"See exhibit 1289 (numerous comments).
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 9

hearing,Airborne's own employees admitted that Airborne did not negotiate in good faith,"
Furthermore,Airborne's willingness to "renegotiate"would clearly then come from a position of
strength -a contractor would already be tied into the operation and have secured trucks and
financing -essentially creating an adhesion contract situation.The beneficence of Airborne's
willingness to renegotiate was clearly a sham .
2.LegalBases of Airborne'sLiability
Each of the issues referenced above supports several different theories of liability .
Airborne's actions can be construed both as breaches of contractual obligations when reviewing
the end results,but also as fraudulent .Assured also addresses Airborne's limitations arguments
below,but rather than rehash issues already briefed for the panel,Assured directs the panel to it's
response to Airborne's motion for partial summary judgment .
A.Breach of Contract
The contracts at issue provide for the application of the laws of the State of Washington
to disputes arising out of the Contract .In order to prevail upon a breach of contract claim under
Washington law,a party must show the existence of a contract between the parties,a material
breach of a covenant within the contract and damages flowing from that breach .In addition to
the covenants contained within a contract,Washington recognizes an implied duty of good faith
and fair dealing within all contracts."Accordingly,in addition to the stated obligation of a duty
of good faith and fair dealing in negotiations within the contracts,Airborne had a broader
'3Exhibits 1281-82 .
"Badgett v.Security State Bank,807 P.2d 356,360 (Wash.1991)("There is in every
contract an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.This duty obligates the parties to
cooperate with each other so that each may obtain the full benefit of performance .").
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 10

obligation to act in good faith towards Assured .
Each of the referenced situations described above involves a breach of the contracts with
Airborne in one respect or another .More specifically,most of the open instances of non-payment
were breaches of contractual obligations to pay Assured for the shipments it handled .These are
straightforward examples of contractual breaches .The bid fraud circumstances relating to breach
are actually encompassed by the subsequent failure to correct the inherent errors in the bid
process through and open and fair renegotiation of the contracts and is thus a breach of good faith
and fair dealing .The hidden underpayments are a dual breach,in that they constitute both a
failure to pay for shipments which Airborne was contractually obligated to pay,but also the
manner in which the payments were not made and the shipments shielded from Assured,
demonstrate an alarming lack of good faith .Indeed the actions of Airborne directly contravene
the essence of good faith within a contractual relationship,expressly preventing Assured from
reaping the benefits of full performance of the contracts .
B.Fraud
Assured asserts that Illinois law applies to its fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims .
Assured asserts that the contractual choice of law provisions do not apply to these fraud claims .
The fraud that Airborne engaged in was designed to induce Assured to enter into or remain in
contractual relationships with Airborne .
As both Bill Bridge and Ed Roeder testified at hearing,Assured would not have entered
into any new contractual agreements or remained in any contractual agreements with Airborne
had it been aware of Airborne's activities .Furthermore,Airborne's fraudulent conduct with
respect to the bid fraud was designed to induce Assured to enter into a contract regarding those
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 11

stations .As for the other acts of fraud outside of the bid process,these included Airborne's
representations that Airborne was paying Assured everything that it was owed and that the
computer payment systems were accurate .Airborne made these representations with the intent of
keeping Assured in the contractual relationship or getting Assured to enter into new Schedule A's
for the stations .
Under Washington and Illinois law,fraud that is involved in the inducement of a party to
enter into a contract eviscerates the contract .That is,one cannot defraud a party to enter into a
contract and then,having trapped the party in a relationship it would not otherwise be in,hold it
to the terms of the contract ."Accordingly,Airborne's fraud eviscerates the choice of law (and
the limitations)provisions of the relevant contracts .
Thus,representations that were made in Illinois,governing a relationship carried out in
Illinois and where all of the damages were suffered in Illinois,should be governed by Illinois law ."
Under Illinois law,the elements of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation are :
(1)a false statement of material fact ;
(2)known or believed to be false by the party making it ;
(3)intent to induce the other party to act ;
(4)action by the other party in justifiable reliance on the truth of the statement ;and
'"Yakima County Fire Protection District No .12 v .C.yty of Yakima,858 P.2d 245,255-6
(Wash.1993)citin Restatement 2d Contracts §164(1)(1981));Shanle v .Moll,323 N.E .2d 148,150 (ill .App.1974).
16 See Diamond State Ins .Co .v_Chester-Jensen Co .,611 N.E .2d 1083,1093-95 (Ill_App.
1993)(applying significant contacts test).
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 12

(5)damage to the other party resulting from such reliance."
Claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation differ only in the mental state
element :the party that makes a negligent misrepresentation need not know the statement was
false ;it simply need owe a duty to communicate accurate information and have been negligent in
ascertaining the truth of the statement ."
Given this legal framework,the record is simply rife with fraudulent conduct by Airborne .
Indeed,the entire payment system established by Airborne was nothing but a sham -subject to
manipulation by Airborne employees to steal payments away from contractors in a stealthy,
almost undetectable manner .High level Airborne officials admitted that the system was
impossible to decipher .Airborne intended for contractors to rely on the system of paid and
unpaid shipment reports to determine how and for what they were being paid .Assured,and many
other contractors,relied on the system to their detriment -not realizing that thousands upon
thousands of dollars of payments to them were being stolen by Airborne .The magnitude of this
theft,when multiplied over the hundreds of contractor-run stations is simply staggering .
C.Punitive Damages
Upon a showing of fraud or negligent misrepresentation,a party is entitled to recover
damages for injuries proximately caused by the false representations ."Under Illinois law,a party
may also recover an award of punitive damages when a tort is committed with fraud,actual
"Gerill Corp .v .Jack L .Hargrove Builders .Inc .,128 Ill .2d 179,193,538 NE .2d 530
(I11 .1989).
"Board of Education v .A,C,&S,Inc .,131111.2d 428,452,546 N .E.2d 580 (Ill .1989).
19Gold v .Dubish,193 Ill .App .3d 339,351,549 N .E.2d 660 (Ill .App .1989).
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 13

malice,deliberate violence or oppression,or when the defendant acts willfully,or with such gross
negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others,10 The award of punitive
damages is based on :
(1)the nature and enormity of the wrongdoing by the defendant,
(2)the potential liability of the defendant for multiple claims by numerous persons affected
by the wrongful conduct,and
(3)the financial status of the defendant .21
As detailed above,the nature and enormity of the theft undertaken by Airborne is simply
staggering.Beyond this,however,is the detailed and directed nature of the wrongdoing .These
thefts were by design,not happenstance .Evidence presented .to the panel demonstrates a
repeated pattern of driving down costs by manipulating systems and intentionally driving
contractors to the very edge of bankruptcy,if not further,to increase profits for the Airborne .
These crimes were perpetrated upon contractor after contractor -not simply the present or then-
present contractors,but every contractor that went through the wood-chipper system contrived
by Airborne .Moreover,most of these contractors can never be vindicated precisely because of
the devious nature of Airborne's plans .A contractor,run out of business by Airborne,is simply
left with no resources to fund an arbitration fight with the substantial upfront fees required to do
so -if the contractor can even figure out that Airborne was stealing from it .Then,Airborne
springs a one-year limitation -designed solely to permit them to get off scot free with their theft
2 °Kelsav v .Motorola,Inc.,74 III .2d 172,186,384 N .E .2d 353 (1978).
2'Hollowellv.Wilder Corp .of Delaware,318 I11 .App .3d 984,990,743 N .E.2d 707 (Ill .
App.2001).
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 14

and to limit the known pool of damages available to a contractor or potential backer of legal
action .There is simply no other basis for such a limitation .The reprehensible nature of this
conduct cannot be understated and should be severely punished by this Panel .Assured has
submitted financial statements for Airborne and its parent company so that the Panel may assess
an appropriate penalty.
Assured notes that merely assessing Airborne the damages incurred by Assured will clearly
be insufficient to stop Airborne's behavior .Airborne is a pickpocket thief that has stolen from
hundreds of pockets,to make the pickpocket return its ill-gotten gain from but a single pocket
still leaves the pickpocket in a wildly profitable position .Any actual damages assessed by the
panel should be multiplied at least 300 fold to ensure that Airborne realizes no profit from its
thieving ways.
D.Limitations
Under Washington law,a cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to
run when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action.'
Washington courts recognize that even in actions for breach of contract,"plaintiffs should not be
barred from bringing suit where they cannot,with reasonable diligence,detect the defendant's
breach_"'Washington courts have encountered the situation Assured now faces ."When one of
the parties is in a poor position to know of the other party's breach,the discovery rule is the only
"Poole v.Seattle-First National Bank,741 F.Supp.837,843 (E .D.Wash.1990).
23 Architechtonics Construction Management.Inc .v .Khorram,45 P.3d 1142,1147 (Wash.
App .Ct .2002).
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 15

means of ensuring the wronged party is not denied a warranted cause of action ...""
Washington and Illinois courts have also applied the discovery rule to fraud and
misrepresentation claims_25 A mere suspicion of a wrong,however,is not discovery of fraud,"the
discovery contemplated is of evidential facts leading to a belief in the fraud and by which
existence of the fraud may be established ."26
Finally,fraudulent concealment of material facts from an aggrieved party that deprive that
party from discovering the accrual of a cause of action will toll the limitation period until such
time as the plaintiff knew or should have known of the fraud .".'
3.Damages
As for damages,Assured provided extensive testimony on the method of damage
calculations and the amounts of those damages.The in-trial production of documentation by
Airborne regarding certain shipment numbers allowed Assured to recalculate some of those
numbers to give Airborne credit for certain Sears consolidation shipments .The entirety of those
calculations have been included in the exhibit book as exhibit A .For the Panel's quick reference,
"Id.at 1149 ;see Washington Public Power Supply Sys .v .General Electric Co .,1989
U.S .Dist .Lexis 18282,39 (1989)(holding that the discovery rule applied to the plaintiff s claims
where the plaintiff had no means or ability to ascertain that the defendant had breached the
commercial contract).
25 Washington Public Power Supply Sys .v .General Electric Co .,1989 U.S.Dist.LEXIS
18282 (E.D.Wash.1989);Vahanian v.Kavlor,2001 Wash.App .LEXIS 1519,8 (Wash .App .
Ct.2001).A plaintiff cause of action for fraud arises when the aggrieved party knew or should
have known facts establishing the fraud .Buesniusv.Horan,769 P.2d 869 (Wash.App.1989);
Commonwealth Edison Co.v.Encompas,Inc .,511 N.E.2d 988,990-91 (111 .App.1987).
261d.
27Crisman v.Crisman,931 P.2d 163,166 (Wash .App .Ct .1997)
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 16

Assured provides a damages breakdown as follows :
III .CONCLUSION
In closing,Assured asks that the Panel sift through the evidence to find the simple truth
and straightforward nature of this case .Airborne's corporate philosophy of using small changes
and actions to create big savings was brought to bear in an unlawful and wrongful way on .its
contractors.Blinded by money,the grease that slicks the wheels of conspiracy,Airborne and its
management from the top straight through to line-level management,sacrificed honesty,integrity,
fairness and justice .The Panel should remove that blindfold and set matters right .
CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF Page 17
Stolen Shipments
LIBRA Consolidations
Counter Shipments :Hold at Airborne
Counter Shipments:Dropped at Airborne
COMAT Shipments
Rockford Bid Fraud
Bloomington Bid Fraud
Mispayments to Other Contractor for State Farm Shipments
Rockford Deductions
Pope Letter Items
Lost Goodwill
Attorney's Fees
Costs
TOTAL
$387,528.36
$965,222 .01
$115,010.24
$160,583 .86
$143,811 .78
$156,812.40
$36,010.47
$5,606.62
$4,688 .51
$14,328.62
$949,489.34
$527,340.00
$494,902.94
$3,961,335 .15

CLAIMANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF
Respectfully submitted,
Mark W.Romney
State Bar No .17225750
Richard E.Aubin
State Bar No .00787012
VIAL,HAMILTON,KOCH &KNox,L.L.P.
1700 Pacific Ave .,Suite 2800
Dallas,Texas 75201
(214)712-4400
(214)712-4402 -Fax
ATTORNEYS FOR CLAIMANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on Respondent's attorney of
record,Michael H .Collins,Locke,Liddell &Sapp,LLP,2200 Ross Avenue,Suite 2200,Dallas,
Texas 75201 by hand delivery on the 30'day of October,2003 .
Richard E.ubin
Page 18