CN challenges UP–Norfolk Southern merger filing, seeks more information

CN has filed a motion with the U.S. Surface Transportation Board seeking to compel additional information related to the proposed merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, arguing the application fails to fully disclose potential competitive harms.

The railway said the applicants have not been transparent in their assessment of the merger’s impacts and have not met regulatory requirements under the board’s merger rules. CN said the shortcomings prevent regulators and stakeholders from properly evaluating the transaction in the public interest.

“Given the scale and stakes of the proposed combination, the applicants must meet the highest standard of transparency and compliance. The information the applicants refuse to disclose is critical to understand their perspective on anticipated competitive harms and inform the Board’s public-interest and competition analyses,” said Olivier Chouc, senior vice-president and chief legal officer at CN.

“Rather than hide behind an inapt legal argument, the applicants should welcome the opportunity for a transparent and fulsome discussion about the merger’s impact on competition. Rather than trying to convince everyone that there is ‘nothing to see here’, the applicants should instead be focused on meeting the rigorous and heightened standard called for by the new merger rules.”

CN said its motion builds on earlier filings challenging the completeness of the merger application. The company identified gaps including incomplete market analyses, missing projections for market shares by revenue and traffic volume and omissions in required traffic data.

The filing also points to deficiencies in network maps submitted by the applicants, which CN said failed to show certain trackage and haulage rights, including parallel or overlapping lines. CN said the applicants have since acknowledged the error and submitted a revised map.

CN further argued the applicants failed to propose measures to enhance competition, saying the absence of such proposals represents a regulatory completeness issue rather than a matter to be addressed later in the approval process.