Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/14/2000 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: November 18, 1997

As reported by the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000, on October 12, 2000, counsel for the respective parties in the Class Action
and the Derivative Action entered into definitive Stipulations of Compromise and
Settlement (the Stipulations), providing for the settlement of the Actions on
the terms described above, subject to court approval. At separate hearings on
December 13, 2000, the court in the Class Action and the court in the Derivative
Action approved the proposed settlement of the respective Actions as fair,
adequate and reasonable and dismissed the respective Actions with prejudice in
favor of the defendants. In its order, the court in the Class Action also
granted in part plaintiffs' counsels' application for attorneys' fees and
expenses, to be paid from the Settlement Payment. In its order, the court in the
Derivative Action also granted plaintiff's counsels' application for attorneys
fees and expenses in the amount of $975,000, which amount has been paid by the
Corporation but has been fully covered by UPC's insurance carriers.

Prior to any rulings on the defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Action and the Derivative Action, counsel for UPC, the Railroad and the individual defendants in those Actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU), dated June 28, 2000, with counsel for the plaintiffs in the Class Action and Derivative Action, providing for the settlement of both Actions. The MOU provided, among other things, that the Class Action would be settled for $34,025,000 in cash (the Settlement Payment), the full amount of which has been covered by UPC's insurance carriers.

According to the same SEC filing, UPC and certain of its directors and officers (who are also directors of the Railroad) were named as defendants in two purported class
actions filed in 1997 that have been consolidated into one proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the Class
Action). In addition to the Class Action, a purported derivative action was
filed on behalf of UPC and the Railroad in September 1998 in the District Court
for Tarrant County, Texas, naming as defendants the then-current and certain
former directors of UPC and the Railroad and, as nominal defendants, UPC and the
Railroad (the Derivative Action and together with the Class Action, the
Actions).

The original complaint alleges that Union Pacific and certain officers and directors of the Company during the relevant time period violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by, among other things, misrepresenting material information concerning the safety and efficiency of the Company's operations and failing to disclose problems the Company was experiencing integrating its operations with those of Southern Pacific Railroad Corp. ("Southern Pacific"), with which it merged in September 1996. As a result of those problems, the benefits defendants claimed to be deriving from the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger were creating numerous operational difficulties including slowed traffic, missed schedules, lost or delayed shipments, safety problems and other customer service difficulties which were exposing the Company to over $1 billion of customer claims, great reputational harm and accelerating federal intervention in its operations.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Transportation
Industry: Railroads
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: UNP
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: N.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 97-CV-2819
JUDGE: Hon. A. Joe Fish
DATE FILED: 11/18/1997
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/04/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/01/1997
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cantilo Maisel & Hubbard
    1717 Main Street, Suite 3200, Cantilo Maisel & Hubbard, TX 75201
    214.740.4600 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  3. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 97-CV-2819
JUDGE: Hon. A. Joe Fish
DATE FILED: 04/10/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/04/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/01/1997
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Hubbard & Biederman
    1717 Main Street Suite 4700, Hubbard & Biederman, TX 75201
    214.857.6000 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  3. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  4. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date