DOCSLIB.ORG

Cn-18 Kcs-1 Before the Surface

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cn-18 Kcs-1 Before the Surface CN-18 KCS-1 BEFORE THE 302407 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD ___________________________ ENTERED Office of Proceedings STB FINANCE DOCKET NO. 36514 May 26, 2021 ___________________________ Part of Public Record CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY, GRAND TRUNK CORPORATION, AND CN’S RAIL OPERATING SUBSIDIARIES – CONTROL – KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN, THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, GATEWAY EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, AND THE TEXAS MEXICAN RAILWAY COMPANY ___________________________ JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF VOTING TRUST AGREEMENT ___________________________ EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION REQUESTED ___________________________ Sean Finn Kathryn J. Gainey Raymond A. Atkins Olivier Chouc CN Terence M. Hynes CN 601 Pennsylvania Ave, Matthew J. Warren 935 de La Gauchetière NW Sidley Austin LLP Street West, Suite 500, North 1501 K Street, N.W. 16th Floor Building Washington, DC 20005 Montreal, QC H3B 2M9 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 736-8000 CANADA (202) 347-7840 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Canadian National Railway Company, Grand Trunk Corporation, and CN’s Rail Operating Subsidiaries Adam Godderz William A. Mullins The Kansas City Southern Crystal Zorbaugh Railway Company Baker and Miller PLLC 427 W 12th Street 2401 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 300 (816) 983-1324 Washington, DC 20037 [email protected] (202) 663-7823 [email protected] Counsel for Kansas City Southern, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Gateway Eastern Railway Company, and the Texas Mexican Railway Company Dated: May 26, 2021 CN-18 KCS-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 2 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 6 I. THE VOTING TRUST WILL PREVENT UNLAWFUL CONTROL OF KCS. ........ 6 II. APPROVAL OF THE VOTING TRUST HAS SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST BENEFITS. .................................................................................................. 10 A. The Use of a Voting Trust Is Essential to Unlock the Public Interest Benefits of a CN-KCS Combination. .............................................................................................. 10 B. A Combination of CN and KCS Would Bring Substantial Public Benefits. ....... 13 C. Stakeholder Support Statements Confirm Substantial Public Benefits of a Voting Trust. ................................................................................................................ 17 III. A VOTING TRUST WILL NOT HARM THE PUBLIC INTEREST. .................. 25 A. The Transaction Will Not Harm CN’s Strong Financial Position. ..................... 26 B. CN’s Proposed Acquisition of KCS Presents No Significant Competitive Concerns. ...................................................................................................................... 33 C. DOJ’s Remaining Arguments Contravene Board Rules and Misunderstand the Law and Facts. ............................................................................................................. 37 D. No Other Comments Identify a Harm From Voting Trust Approval. ................ 43 IV. CP SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE THE BOARD’S VOTING TRUST REVIEW TO COERCE KCS INTO AN INFERIOR DEAL. .......................................... 46 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 50 EXHIBIT 1: Verified Statement of Jean-Jacques Ruest (with Attachment) EXHIBIT 2: Verified Statement of Patrick J. Ottensmeyer EXHIBIT 3: Verified Statement of Ghislain Houle EXHIBIT 4: Verified Statement of William J. Rennicke EXHIBIT 5: Verified Statement of Joshua D. Wright EXHIBIT 6: Opinion Letter of Lawson Hunter EXHIBIT 7: Selected Support Statements EXHIBIT 8: Agreement and Plan of Merger (fully executed, including Voting Trust Agreement as Exhibit A) CN-18 KCS-1 On May 17, 2021, the Board decided that the application of Canadian National Railway Company (“CNR”), Grand Trunk Corporation (“GTC”), and CN’s rail operating subsidiaries1 (collectively, “CN”) seeking authority for the acquisition of control of Kansas City Southern (“KCS”)2 would be subject to the Board’s current merger regulations, and denied CN’s motion to approve its proposed Voting Trust Agreement without prejudice as “incomplete.”3 CN and KCS (collectively, “Applicants”) now file this Joint Motion for Approval of their Voting Trust Agreement. In this Motion, Applicants will address each element of the Board’s test for voting trust approval, following the guidance the Board provided in its May 17 Decision. The revised Voting Trust Agreement and now- executed merger agreement were submitted to the Board on May 18, 2021, and a fully executed version is attached as Exhibit 8. 1 CN’s U.S. rail operating subsidiaries include Illinois Central Railroad Company (“IC”), Wisconsin Central Ltd. (“WCL”), Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company (“GTW”), Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company (“B&LE”), Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad Company (“CC&P”), Cedar River Railroad Company (“CEDR”), The Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Company (“P&CD”), Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company (“SSMB”), Waterloo Railway Company (“WLOO”), and Wisconsin Chicago Link Ltd. (“WCLL”). CN’s rail operating subsidiaries in Canada include Algoma Central Railway, Inc. (“ACR”), Quebec and Lake Saint John Railway Company (“QLSJR”), Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company (“CNQ”), Canada Southern Railway Company (“CASO”), and BC Rail Partnership (“BCRP”). 2 “KCS” is Kansas City Southern, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Gateway Eastern Railway Company, and The Texas Mexican Railway Company. 3 Decision No. 2; Decision No. 3, Canadian Nat’l Ry. Co. et al.—Control—Kansas City Southern et al., STB Finance Docket No. 36514 (served May 17, 2021) (“May 17 Decision”), at 1. 1 CN-18 KCS-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY After an intense competition among CN, Canadian Pacific (“CP”), and private equity interests, all seeking to acquire KCS’s historic railroad franchise, KCS has determined that a partnership with CN will provide the greatest benefits to rail customers, employees, local communities, the North American economy, and KCS shareholders.4 The Board’s approval of Applicants’ Voting Trust Agreement—and the regulatory certainty that it provides—is essential to unlock the considerable public interest benefits of a CN-KCS combination. Applicants appreciate that the STB will approve a voting trust for a major merger cautiously. Under the current merger rules, Applicants must demonstrate that the public benefits from the use of a voting trust exceed any potential harms. In this Motion, Applicants meet that standard. We will show that approval of the proposed voting trust conforms with all requirements set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 1013, would achieve substantial public benefits, does not present any significant public interest harm, and thus satisfies the Board’s public interest test in 49 C.F.R. § 1180.4(b)(4)(iv). First, the CN-KCS combination will bring overwhelming public interest benefits—benefits that cannot be realized without a voting trust. The competitive benefits of the transaction are detailed by CN’s President and Chief Executive Officer Jean-Jacques Ruest, by KCS’s President and Chief Executive Officer 4 See KCS Letter to STB, Canadian National Ry. Co.—Control—Kansas City So. et al., STB Finance Docket No. 36514 (“CN-KCS”) CN-KCS (filed May 21, 2021). 2 CN-18 KCS-1 Patrick J. Ottensmeyer, and in the more than 1,100 supporting letters filed with the Board by stakeholders, including customers, port authorities, and communities for whom the transaction will provide a safer, faster, cleaner, and stronger rail option. These stakeholders will particularly benefit from single-line North-South service from Mexico to Canada and service linking Mid-America to east and west coast markets and international ports. The proposed combination will enhance trade and the public policy supporting North American trade embodied in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”), and create a more resilient supply chain. As these letters reflect, the combination will result not only in better service, more shipping options and streamlined routing, but also in substantial environmental benefits, as the single-line CN-KCS rail network will allow trains to compete more successfully with trucks, which produce far more pollution to haul the same loads. As Mr. Ruest and Mr. Ottensmeyer explain, use of a voting trust is essential to unlock those benefits. Second, approval of the voting trust presents no public interest harms. The Board has identified potential financial harm to the applicants as a key focus of public interest review. Here, the Board has already concluded that divestiture would not cause financial harm to KCS.5 CN, too, will remain financially strong following the combination and would remain so if it were required to divest KCS. 5 Decision No. 5, Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd.—Control—Kansas City Southern, STB Finance Docket No. 36500 (May 6, 2021) (“May 6 Decision”), at 6 (“The Board also finds that, in the event divestiture were necessary, there is no significant risk that the financial strength or operational capabilities of Kansas City Southern … would be compromised.”). 3 CN-18 KCS-1 As detailed in the Verified Statement of Ghislain Houle, CN’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, the acquisition premium CN has proposed does not remotely threaten its financial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reporting Marks
    Lettres d'appellation / Reporting Marks AA Ann Arbor Railroad AALX Advanced Aromatics LP AAMX ACFA Arrendadora de Carros de Ferrocarril S.A. AAPV American Association of Private RR Car Owners Inc. AAR Association of American Railroads AATX Ampacet Corporation AB Akron and Barberton Cluster Railway Company ABB Akron and Barberton Belt Railroad Company ABBX Abbott Labs ABIX Anheuser-Busch Incorporated ABL Alameda Belt Line ABOX TTX Company ABRX AB Rail Investments Incorporated ABWX Asea Brown Boveri Incorporated AC Algoma Central Railway Incorporated ACAX Honeywell International Incorporated ACBL American Commercial Barge Lines ACCX Consolidation Coal Company ACDX Honeywell International Incorporated ACEX Ace Cogeneration Company ACFX General Electric Rail Services Corporation ACGX Suburban Propane LP ACHX American Cyanamid Company ACIS Algoma Central Railway Incorporated ACIX Great Lakes Chemical Corporation ACJR Ashtabula Carson Jefferson Railroad Company ACJU American Coastal Lines Joint Venture Incorporated ACL CSX Transportation Incorporated ACLU Atlantic Container Line Limited ACLX American Car Line Company ACMX Voith Hydro Incorporated ACNU AKZO Chemie B V ACOU Associated Octel Company Limited ACPX Amoco Oil Company ACPZ American Concrete Products Company ACRX American Chrome and Chemicals Incorporated ACSU Atlantic Cargo Services AB ACSX Honeywell International Incorporated ACSZ American Carrier Equipment ACTU Associated Container Transport (Australia) Limited ACTX Honeywell International Incorporated ACUU Acugreen Limited ACWR
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-CSX-Annual-Report.Pdf
    CSX Corporation 2019 Annual Report 2019 Annual Report In this Report 2 Message from the CEO 4 Delivering Results 5 Safety Focused 6 Raising the Bar on Rail Service 7 Positioned for Growth 8 Environmental, Social and Governance BC Our Board of Directors and Executive Management Major Terminal CSX Rail Service CSX Operating Agreements 3 Powered to Perform CSX brings on-time delivery, first-class service, and a seamless shipping experience to customers across an extensive network that reaches nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population and a diverse set of consumers and industrial end markets. A leading supplier of rail-based freight transportation, CSX is powered to deliver comprehensive service solutions. CSX Revenue Mix 21% Chemicals 66% Merchandise 12% Agricultural and Food 11% Automotive 8% Forest Products 6% Metals and Equipment 5% Minerals 4% Fertilizers 18% Coal 15% Intermodal Message from the CEO Transforming Service into Growth Dear Fellow Shareholders, CSX’s 2019 results have set a new standard of financial and Optimizing the customer experience was also a critical operating performance for U.S. railroads. CSX employees 2019 focus area, as employees across all departments ran the network better than at any point in the company’s designed, delivered and supported exceptional rail service. history, setting new efficiency records throughout the year. We measure service success for merchandise and The CSX team delivered unparalleled service and reliability intermodal shipments by our performance on meeting trip for customers, laying the foundation for long-term business plan schedules, calculated to the hour and minute, for every growth in the months and years ahead, all while driving carload, container and trailer on the railroad, including industry-leading safety performance.
    [Show full text]
  • View CSRM Railroad Equipment Roster
    California State Railroad Museum Railroad Equipment Roster Old Sacramento SHP (Sacramento Southern Railroad) Railroad, Number, Name Type Builder Date Notes Locomotive Roster Steam Locomotives Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe 5 Little Buttercup 0-4-0 Baldwin 1899 SantEx-0-4-0T a Fe Terminal 1, AT&SF 2419; rebuilt as 0-4-0 and operated 1949 at Chicago R.R. Fair. Gift 3/1986 from AT&SF. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe 1010 2-6-2 Baldwin 1901 Pulled 1905 Death Valley Scotty Special. Gift 10/1984 from AT&SF. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe 2925 4-8-4 Baldwin 1944 Gift 3/1986 from AT&SF. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe 5021 2-10-4 Baldwin 1944 Gift 3/1986 from AT&SF. Central Pacific4-4-0 1 Gov. Stanford R. Norris 1862 Last operated 1/1895. Loaned 1981 by Leland Stanford Junior University. Restored by CSRM to 1899 appearance. Central Pacific 233 2-6-2T CP, Sacto Shops 1882 Built for East Bay suburban service. Later CP 1504, SP 1903. One of two surviving 19th century locomotives built in CP Sacto shops. Gift 12/2001 from Pacific Locomotive Assn. Granite Rock 10 0-6-0ST Porter 1942 Ex-US Army 5001. Gift 9/95 from Granite Rock Company; restored 1997 by Granite Rock and CSRM. In service. Kiso Forest Ry 6 (36” gauge) 0- 4-2T Baldwin 1929 Originally 30” gauge, Kiso Forest 17, 9. Gift 2004 from Henry Sorensen family. Operable. Revised: 1/10/07 1 Printed: 03/01/07 Railroad, Number, Name Type Builder Date Notes Mattole Lumber Co. 1 (36” gauge) 0-4-2T Vulcan 1908 Reboilered in 1960s.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Railroad Administration Fiscal Year 2017 Enforcement Report
    Federal Railroad Administration Fiscal Year 2017 Enforcement Report Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Summary of Inspections and Audits Performed, and of Enforcement Actions Recommended in FY 2017 A. Railroad Safety and Hazmat Compliance Inspections and Audits 1. All Railroads and Other Entities (e.g., Hazmat Shippers) Except Individuals 2. Railroads Only B. Summary of Railroad Safety Violations Cited by Inspectors, by Regulatory Oversight Discipline or Subdiscipline 1. Accident/Incident Reporting 2. Grade Crossing Signal System Safety 3. Hazardous Materials 4. Industrial Hygiene 5. Motive Power and Equipment 6. Railroad Operating Practices 7. Signal and train Control 8. Track C. FRA and State Inspections of Railroads, Sorted by Railroad Type 1. Class I Railroads 2. Probable Class II Railroads 3. Probable Class III Railroads D. Inspections and Recommended Enforcement Actions, Sorted by Class I Railroad 1. BNSF Railway Company 2. Canadian National Railway/Grand Trunk Corporation 3. Canadian Pacific Railway/Soo Line Railroad Company 4. CSX Transportation, Inc. 5. The Kansas City Southern Railway Company 6. National Railroad Passenger Corporation 7. Norfolk Southern Railway Company 8. Union Pacific Railroad Company III. Summaries of Civil Penalty Initial Assessments, Settlements, and Final Assessments in FY 2017 A. In General B. Summary 1—Brief Summary, with Focus on Initial Assessments Transmitted C. Breakdown of Initial Assessments in Summary 1 1. For Each Class I Railroad Individually in FY 2017 2. For Probable Class II Railroads in the Aggregate in FY 2017 3. For Probable Class III Railroads in the Aggregate in FY 2017 4. For Hazmat Shippers in the Aggregate in FY 2017 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Baker & Miller Pllc
    301783 ENTERED BAKER & MILLER PLLC Office of Proceedings March 19 2021 Part of 2401 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW S U I T E 3 0 0 Public Record WASHINGTON, DC 20037 ( 2 0 2 ) 6 6 3 - 7 8 2 0 ( 2 0 2 ) 6 6 3 - 7 8 4 9 William A. Mullins Direct Dial: (202) 663 - 7 8 2 3 E - M a i l : [email protected] March 19, 2021 VIA E-FILING Ms. Cynthia T. Brown Chief, Section of Administration Office of Proceedings Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street, S.W., Room 1034 Washington, DC 20423-0001 Re: FD 36472 CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc. – Control and Merger – Pan Am Systems, Inc., Pan Am Railways, Inc., Boston & Maine Corporation, Maine Central Railroad Company, Northern Railroad, Pan Am Southern LLC, Portland Terminal Company, Springfield Terminal Railway Company, Stony Brook Railroad Company, and Vermont & Massachusetts Railroad Company FD 36472 (Sub-No. 5) Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, LLC d/b/a Berkshire & Eastern Railroad – Operation of Property of Rail Carrier Pan Am Southern LLC – Pan Am Southern LLC and Springfield Terminal Railway Company Reply Comments of Norfolk Southern Railway Company Dear Ms. Brown: Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“NSR”) hereby submits the following comments in reply to the Application (the “Application”) filed by CSX Corporation (“CSX”) and CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSXT”) (collectively, the “Applicants”). NSR supports the proposed transaction as submitted. Baker & Miller PLLC Ms. Cynthia T. Brown March 19, 2021 Page 2 of 4 NSR initially had some concerns about possible adverse anticompetitive effects that would arise from an unconditioned transaction,1 but CSXT and NSR have discussed and worked through those concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • CRO 0209.Pdf
    www.canadianrailwayobservations.com Updated 04/02/2009 CANADIAN NATIONAL CN Locomotives retired since last issue: (Previous retirement October 30th) GTW GP9r 4635 on January 28th (*Sold to MNNR January 19th … see below) On January 2nd 2009, Walter Pfefferle caught GODERICH-EXETER (GEXR) GP40 4019 pulling out of the EMCC plant in London, Ontario with these fully painted and brand new CN SD70M-2’s: 8852, 8854, 8856 and 8858. As well CN 8850-8867 were released in early January 2009. http://railfan.thegrebs.com/CN/GEXR_4019_EMD_London_Ont_1_2_09 (GEXR GP40) http://railfan.thegrebs.com/CN/CN_8854_London_1_2_09 3/4 http://railfan.thegrebs.com/CN/CN_8858_London_1_2_09 3/4 http://railfan.thegrebs.com/CN/CN_8856_London_1_2_09 3/4 http://railfan.thegrebs.com/CN/CN_8852_London_1_2_09 3/4 http://railfan.thegrebs.com/CN/CN_8852a_London_1_2_08 Rear shot. New CN Power: The following new SD70M-2 sightings came from several CRO readers this month: On January 14th, CN Intermodal 194 (which is a very lucrative UPS contracted train and operates between Chicago-Memphis-Jackson-New Orleans), departed Markham with brand new CN 8853, CN 5513, CN 9543, 150 cars, 7141 tons and 9845-feet of train. On January 13th at Chappel Jct, (near Saskatoon, SK), CN 104 had CN 8865 leading. On January 13th, CN 198 had CN 8855-2643 for power at Chappel Jct. January 11th, CN train Q120 with 2525-5698 and new CN SD70M-2 8863 with 9823-feet of train at 8767 tons enroute to Halifax, NS and arrived on the 12th. While on the Montmagny Subdivision, SD70M-2 8863 reportedly had a minor mechanical issue that was resolved while in transit.
    [Show full text]
  • MDOT Michigan State Rail Plan Tech Memo 2 Existing Conditions
    Technical Memorandum #2 March 2011 Prepared for: Prepared by: HNTB Corporation Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 2. Freight Rail System Profile ......................................................................................2 2.1. Overview ...........................................................................................................2 2.2. Class I Railroads ...............................................................................................2 2.3. Regional Railroads ............................................................................................6 2.4. Class III Shortline Railroads .............................................................................7 2.5. Switching & Terminal Railroads ....................................................................12 2.7. State Owned Railroads ...................................................................................16 2.8. Abandonments ................................................................................................18 2.10. International Border Crossings .....................................................................22 2.11. Ongoing Border Crossing Activities .............................................................24 2.12. Port Access Facilities ....................................................................................24 3. Freight Rail Traffic ................................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • Stronger Ties: a Shared Commitment to Railway Safety
    STRONGER TIES: A S H A R E D C O M M I T M E N T TO RAILWAY SAFETY Review of the Railway Safety Act November 2007 Published by Railway Safety Act Review Secretariat Ottawa, Canada K1A 0N5 This report is available at: www.tc.gc.ca/tcss/RSA_Review-Examen_LSF Funding for this publication was provided by Transport Canada. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department. ISBN 978-0-662-05408-5 Catalogue No. T33-16/2008 © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Transport, 2007 This material may be freely reproduced for non-commercial purposes provided that the source is acknowledged. Photo Credits: Chapters 1-10: Transport Canada; Appendix B: CP Images TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................1 1.1 Rationale for the 2006 Railway Safety Act Review . .2 1.2 Scope . 2 1.3 Process ....................................................................................3 1.3.1 Stakeholder Consultations . .4 1.3.2 Research . 6 1.3.3 Development of Recommendations .......................................6 1.4 Key Challenges for the Railway Industry and the Regulator.................7 1.5 A Word of Thanks .................................................................... 10 2. STATE OF RAIL SAFETY IN CANADA ...................................11 2.1 Accidents 1989-2006 ................................................................. 12 2.2 Categories of Accidents . 13 2.2.1 Main Track Accidents...................................................... 14 2.2.2 Non-Main Track Accidents ............................................... 15 2.2.3 Crossing and Trespasser Accidents . 15 2.2.4 Transportation of Dangerous Goods Accidents and Incidents . 17 2.3 Normalizing Accidents . 18 2.4 Comparing Rail Safety in Canada and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Annual Report
    Norfolk Southern Corporation Annual Report 2005 StrongStrong Legacy,Legacy, BrightBright FutureFuture System Map Norfolk Southern Railway and its Railroad Operating Subsidiaries NS Trackage/Haulage Rights Meridian Speedway Heartland Corridor Annual Report 2005 2 Norfolk Southern Corporation Description of Business Norfolk Southern Corporation is a Norfolk, Va.-based company that controls a major freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Company. The railway operates ap- proximately 21,200 route miles in 22 east- ern states, the District of Columbia and On- tario, Canada, serves all major eastern ports and connects with rail partners in the West and Canada, linking customers to markets around the world. Norfolk Southern pro- vides comprehensive logistics services and offers the most extensive intermodal net- work in the East. Financial Highlights % INCREASE ($ in millions, except per share amounts) 2004 2005 (DECREASE) FINANCIAL RESULTS Railway operating revenues $ 7,312 $ 8,527 17 Income from railway operations $ 1,702 $ 2,117 24 Railway operating ratio 76.7% 75.2% (2) 1 2 Net Income $ 923 $ 1,281 39 Earnings per share 1 2 Basic $ 2.34 $ 3.17 35 1 2 Diluted $ 2.31 $ 3.11 35 FINANCIAL POSITION Total assets $ 24,750 $ 25,861 4 Total debt $ 7,525 $ 6,930 (8) Stockholders’ equity $ 7,990 $ 9,289 16 Debt to total capitalization ratio 48.5% 42.7% (12) Stockholders’ equity per share $ 19.95 $ 22.66 14 OTHER INFORMATION Year-end stock price $ 36.19 $ 44.83 24 Dividends per share $ 0.36 $ 0.48 33 Annual Report 2005 15.7 14.4 (8) Price/earnings ratio at year end 1 51,032 48,180 (6) Number of shareholders at year end Shares outstanding at year end 400,438,982 409,885,788 2 Number of employees at year end 28,986 30,433 5 1 Results in 2004 include a $53 million net gain from the Conrail corporate reorganization, which increased net income by $53 million, or 13 cents per diluted share.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona State Rail Plan March 2011
    Arizona State Rail Plan March 2011 Arizona Department of Transportation This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgements The State Rail Plan was made possible by the cooperative efforts of the following individuals and organizations who contributed significantly to the successful completion of the project: Rail Technical Advisory Team Cathy Norris, BNSF Railway Chris Watson, Arizona Corporation Commission Bonnie Allin, Tucson Airport Authority Reuben Teran, Arizona Game and Fish Department Zoe Richmond, Union Pacific Railroad David Jacobs, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Jane Morris, City of Phoenix – Sky Harbor Airport Gordon Taylor, Arizona State Land Department Patrick Loftus, TTX Company Cathy Norris, BNSF Railway Angela Mogel, Bureau of Land Management ADOT Project Team Jack Tomasik, Central Arizona Association of Governments Sara Allred, Project Manager Paul Johnson, City of Yuma Kristen Keener Busby, Sustainability Program Manager Jermaine Hannon, Federal Highway Administration John Halikowski, Director Katai Nakosha, Governor’s Office John McGee, Executive Director for Planning and Policy James Chessum, Greater Yuma Port Authority Mike Normand, Director of Transit Programs Kevin Wallace, Maricopa Association of Governments Shannon Scutari, Esq. Director, Rail & Sustainability Marc Pearsall, Maricopa Association of Governments Services Gabe Thum, Pima Association of Governments Jennifer Toth, Director, Multi-Modal Planning Division Robert Bohannan, RH Bohannan & Associates Robert Travis, State Railroad Liaison Jay
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Corporate Profile + Fact Book
    2008 corporate profile + fact book 2008 corporate profile + fact book table of contents 4 Financial summary 44 Integrated Operating Plan (IOP) 6 Key metrics 45 Interline management 10 System map (density) 46 Co-production 11 Corporate history 48 Information technology 12 Recent acquisition: DM&E 49 Safety 13 Company overview 51 Environment 14 Network 55 Community relations 17 Markets 57 Human resources i. Bulk 58 Labour relations ii. Merchandise iii. Intermodal 61 Governance 36 Canadian Pacific Logistics Solutions (CPLS) 63 Executive profiles 37 Motive power 65 Board of Directors 38 Freight car fleet 66 Financial data 40 Rail yards and intermodal terminals 70 Glossary 42 Repair facilities TSX / NYSE | CP forward-looking information This Corporate Profile and Fact Book contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (United States) and other relevant securities legislation relating but not limited to Canadian Pacific’s (CP) operations, anticipated financial performance, business prospects and strategies. Forward-looking information typically contains statements with words such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “expect”, “plan” or similar words suggesting future outcomes. Readers are cautioned to not place undue reliance on forward-looking information because it is possible that we will not achieve predictions, forecasts, projections and other forms of forward-looking information. In addition, except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update publicly or otherwise
    [Show full text]
  • 3.) MS State Rail Plan 2016
    THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. ES-1 1 THE ROLE OF RAIL IN MISSISSIPPI ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE RAIL PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 MISSISSIPPI’S GOALS FOR ITS MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ....................................................................... 1-1 1.3 THE ROLE OF RAIL IN MISSISSIPPI’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF MISSISSIPPI’S RAIL PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 1-3 1.4.1 Mississippi Department of Transportation .................................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.4.2 Mississippi Development Authority ............................................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.3 Southern Rail Commission ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-5 1.4.4 Public Authorities .........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]