Item 3. Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are involved in legal proceedings, claims, and litigation that occur in connection with our business. We routinely assess our liabilities and contingencies in connection with these matters based upon the latest available information and, when necessary, we seek input from our third-party advisors when making these assessments. Consistent with SEC rules and requirements, we describe below material pending legal proceedings (other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business), material proceedings known to be contemplated by governmental authorities, other proceedings arising under federal, state, or local environmental laws and regulations (including governmental proceedings involving potential fines, penalties, or other monetary sanctions in excess of $1,000,000), and such other pending matters that we may determine to be appropriate.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

We receive notices from the EPA and state environmental agencies alleging that we are or may be liable under federal or state environmental laws for remediation costs at various sites throughout the U.S., including sites on the Superfund National Priorities List or state superfund lists. We cannot predict the ultimate impact of these proceedings and suits because of the number of potentially responsible parties involved, the degree of contamination by various wastes, the scarcity and quality of volumetric data related to many of the sites, and the speculative nature of remediation costs.

Information concerning environmental claims and contingencies and estimated remediation costs is set forth in this report in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Critical Accounting Estimates – Environmental, Item 7, and Note 17 to the Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Item 8.

OTHER MATTERS

Antitrust Litigation – As we reported in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, 20 rail shippers (many of whom were 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. Currently, UPRR and three other Class I railroads are the named defendants in the lawsuits. The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007. These suits alleged that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

On August 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) affirmed the decision of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (U.S. District Court) denying class certification (the Certification Denial). Only five plaintiffs remain in this multidistrict litigation (MDL) originally filed in 2007, which remains pending. They are proceeding on a consolidated basis in the U.S. District Court before the Honorable Paul L. Friedman (MDL I). Since the Certification Denial, approximately 111 lawsuits have been filed in federal court based on claims identical to those alleged in the class certification case. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these suits for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court before the Honorable Beryl A. Howell (MDL II).

On February 19, 2021, the court denied our motion to exclude plaintiffs' alleged evidence of conspiracy under a federal statute designed to incent and protect railroad communications made to further interline service (i.e., where two railroads are in the route). On May 17, 2022, the DC Circuit reversed the trial court and largely adopted the railroads’ interpretation of the statute, although no individual evidentiary rulings were made.

We also filed a motion for summary judgment on May 14, 2021, in the MDL I proceedings, and the briefing was completed in September 2021. A hearing has not been scheduled on the motion.

As we reported in our Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on June 10, 2011, the Railroad received a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 7, 2011, by Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC and related entities (Oxbow). Just as it did in the MDL proceedings, Union Pacific filed a motion for summary judgment on May 14, 2021, and no hearing has been scheduled.

We continue to 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.