CSX loses bid in US appeals court to revive antitrust claims against Norfolk Southern
By Mike Scarcella
Aug 29 (Reuters) -Freight rail giant CSX CSX.O on Thursday failed to persuade a U.S. appeals court to revive a lawsuit accusing rival Norfolk Southern NSC.N of denying access to a major East Coast marine terminal, causing it hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia said CSX’s allegations over the Norfolk International Terminal were untimely, falling outside the four-year window allowed for filing such claims under U.S. antitrust law.
The Richmond-based appeals court upheld a lower judge who ruled last year against CSX.
CSX, which had more than $14 billion in revenue last year, said in a statement on Thursday that it was “evaluating all options as we remain committed to gaining competitive access” at the terminal.
Norfolk Southern did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
International container ships use the Norfolk terminal to offload cargo onto trains and trucks that transport goods to inland destinations. Norfolk Southern owns tracks at the dock, but CSX does not.
CSX pays a “switch rate” for on-dock rail access, and it sued in 2018 claiming Norfolk Southern had conspired with Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Co to set an excessive amount.
Norfolk Southern and CSX, among the largest U.S. freight rail carriers, compete to transport containers that arrive at U.S. ports.
The appeals court said CSX’s claims against Norfolk Southern and Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line dated to 2009, making the lawsuit untimely since it was filed years later.
CSX countered that the statute of limitation clock was ongoing, since the allegedly unlawful switch rate was in place daily and the company had endured “accumulating harm” over many years.
In its appeal, CSX argued that the lower court ruling effectively created an immunity shield that would block lawsuits “so long as monopolists and conspirators maintain an anticompetitive practice for four years without challenge.”
But the panel judges — Circuit Judges Albert Diaz, A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. and Allison Jones Rushing — were not persuaded.
Diaz, writing for the court, said the decision to keep the same allegedly unlawful switch rate in place for years “didn’t inflict new harm causing new injury to CSX within the limitations period.”
The case is CSX Transportation v Norfolk Southern Railway et al, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-1537.
For CSX: Charles Rothfeld of Mayer Brown, and Benjamin Hatch of McGuireWoods
For Norfolk Southern: Shay Dvoretzky of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
Read more:
Norfolk Southern loses bid for legal fees after beating rival CSX's lawsuit
Freight train maker Westinghouse Air Brake sued by rival over antitrust claims
U.S. judge scraps CSX jury trial in rail antitrust case
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
