Union Pacific 2009 Annual Report Download - page 19

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 19 of the 2009 Union Pacific annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 114

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114

19
Information concerning environmental claims and contingencies and estimated remediation costs is set
forth in Management’ s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations –
Critical Accounting Policies – Environmental, Item 7.
OTHER MATTERS
As we reported in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, 20 small rail
shippers (many of whom are represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits
in various federal district courts against us and four other Class I railroads in the U.S. The original
plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007, and the
additional plaintiffs filed claims in district courts in various states, including Florida, Illinois, Alabama,
Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. These suits allege that the named railroads engaged in price-
fixing by establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.
We received additional complaints following the initial claim, increasing the total number of complaints
to 30. In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail transportation, a few of the suits involve
plaintiffs alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation and seek to represent a
purported class of indirect purchasers of rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges. These complaints
have added allegations under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. On November 6, 2007, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred to
Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. Subsequently, the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaints against UPRR and three other Class I
railroads.
One additional shipper filed a separate anti-trust suit during 2008. Subsequently, the shipper voluntarily
dismissed the action without prejudice.
On October 10, 2008, Judge Friedman heard oral arguments with respect to the defendant railroads’
motions to dismiss. In a ruling on November 7, 2008, Judge Friedman denied the motion with respect to
the direct purchasers’ complaint, and, therefore, that case has moved into discovery. On December 31,
2008, Judge Friedman ruled that the allegations of the indirect purchasers based upon state antitrust,
consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws must be dismissed. He also ruled, however, that the
plaintiffs can proceed with their claim for injunctive relief under the federal antitrust laws, which is
identical to a claim by the direct purchaser plaintiffs. The indirect purchasers are appealing Judge
Friedman's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
We deny the allegations that our fuel surcharge programs violate the antitrust laws or any other laws. We
believe that these lawsuits are without merit, and we will vigorously defend our actions. Therefore, we
currently believe that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on any of our results of
operations, financial condition, and liquidity.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of 2009.