ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Set forth below is a description of certain legal proceedings involving BNSF and its subsidiaries.
WHEAT AND BARLEY TRANSPORTATION RATES
In September 1980, a class action lawsuit was filed against BNRR in United States District Court for the District of Montana ("Montana District Court") challenging the reasonableness of BNRR export wheat and barley rates. The class consists of Montana grain producers and elevators. The plaintiffs sought a finding that BNRR single car export wheat and barley rates for shipments moving from Montana to the Pacific Northwest were unreasonably high and requested damages in the amount of $64 million. In March 1981, the Montana District Court referred the rate reasonableness issue to the ICC. Subsequently, the state of Montana filed a complaint at the ICC challenging BNRR's multiple car rates for Montana wheat and barley movements occurring after October 1, 1980.
The ICC issued a series of decisions in this case from 1988 to 1991. Under these decisions, the ICC applied a revenue to variable cost test to the rates and determined that BNRR owed $9,685,918 in reparations plus interest. In its last decision, dated November 26, 1991, the ICC found BNRR's total reparations exposure to be $16,559,012 through July 1, 1991. The ICC also found that BNRR's current rates were below a reasonable maximum and vacated its earlier rate prescription order.
BNRR appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") those portions of the ICC's decisions concerning the post-October 1, 1980 rate levels. BNRR's primary contention on appeal was that the ICC erred in using the revenue to variable cost rate standard to judge the rates instead of Constrained Market Pricing/Stand Alone Cost principles. The limited portions of decisions that cover pre-October 1, 1980 rates were appealed to the Montana District Court.
On March 24, 1992, the Montana District Court dismissed plaintiffs' case as to all aspects other than those relating to pre-October 1, 1980 rates. On February 9, 1993, the D.C. Circuit served its decision regarding the appeal of the several ICC decisions in this case. The court held that the ICC did not adequately justify its use of the revenue to variable cost standard as BNRR had argued and remanded the case to the ICC for further administrative proceedings.
On July 22, 1993, the ICC served an order in response to the D.C. Circuit's February 9, 1993 decision. In its order, the ICC stated it would use the Constrained Market Pricing/Stand Alone Cost principles in assessing the reasonableness of BNRR wheat and barley rates moving from Montana to Pacific Coast ports from 1978 forward. The ICC assigned the case to the Office of Hearings to develop a procedural schedule.
On October 28, 1994, plaintiffs filed their opening evidence arguing that the revenue received by BNRR exceeded the stand alone costs of transporting that traffic and that BNRR rates were unreasonably high. BNRR filed its evidence March 29, 1995, showing that the stand alone costs of transporting the traffic exceeded the revenue derived by BNRR on that traffic and that consequently, its rates were not unreasonably high. The parties filed briefs simultaneously on August 16, 1995, and the proceeding awaits decision by the Surface Transportation Board, successor to the ICC.
COAL TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT LITIGATION
On April 26, 1991, an action was filed against BNRR in the 102nd Judicial District Court for Bowie County, Texas, seeking a reduction of the transportation rates required to be paid under two contracts (Southwestern Electric Power Company v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company, No. D-102-CV- 91-0720). The plaintiff, Southwestern Electric Power Company ("SWEPCO"), was challenging the contract rates for transportation of coal to its electric generating facilities at Cason, Texas, and Flint Creek, Arkansas. SWEPCO contended that productivity gains achieved by BNRR constituted unusual economic conditions giving rise to a "gross inequity" because BNRR's costs of providing service have been reduced over the contracts' terms. On August 2, 1994, plaintiff amended its complaint to further allege that BNRR had been unjustly enriched by retaining differences between the rates actually charged and those that SWEPCO alleged should have been charged. SWEPCO sought both prospective rate relief and recovery of alleged past overcharges.
BNRR's primary contention was that both parties anticipated productivity gains in the rail industry when negotiating the contracts and agreed that BNRR would retain most of its productivity gains. BNRR further contended that there was no agreement that transportation rates paid by SWEPCO would be based on BNRR's cost of providing service.
On November 18, 1994, the jury rendered a verdict denying plaintiff's request for prospective rate relief and that plaintiff take nothing on its principal claims of "gross inequity." However, BNRR was assessed damages approximating $56 million relating to plaintiff's alternative claim of unjust enrichment. On January 20, 1995, the trial court rendered a judgment on the verdict in an amount approximating $74 million, which included attorneys' fees and interest. The judgment further awarded post-judgment interest at 10 percent per annum and issued declaratory orders pertaining to the two contracts. BNRR filed its notice of appeal in the case on February 17, 1995 and posted a bond staying enforcement of the judgment in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, Texarkana, Texas (Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. Southwestern Electric Power Company, No. 06-95- 00024-CV). SWEPCO has filed a notice of cross appeal and the case is awaiting review. In the opinion of outside counsel, BNRR has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on appeal, although no assurances can be given due to the uncertainties inherent in litigation.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS
By letter dated August 31, 1995, the Wisconsin Department of Justice, on behalf of the State of Wisconsin, notified BNRR of its intent to file a complaint by the end of September 1995 seeking penalties of $200 per day, a penalty assessment, and an environmental assessment for BNRR's alleged failure, for 964 days, to submit a remedial action plan for the Ashland Railyard, Ashland, Wisconsin, by May 7, 1993, as established by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. BNRR undertook groundwater monitoring and removed and disposed of all former railroad structures on the property, but because of the existence of contamination from offsite and upgradient sources, did not believe that it would be prudent or technically reasonable to accomplish site remediation until all upgradient and contributing sources were properly considered. The property had been leased for many years to another railroad which operated the railyard facility. In State of Wisconsin v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company and Soo Line Railroad Company (Case No. 96 CV 007), BNRR settled this matter for $106,580 pursuant to a stipulation and order for judgment entered on January 22, 1996, by the Circuit Court for Ashland County, Wisconsin. This matter is now considered terminated.
On December 18, 1995, the State of Illinois filed a Complaint captioned People of the State of Illinois v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company, Beazer East, Inc. and Koppers Industries, Inc. (PCB No. 96-132) before the Illinois Pollution Control Board against BNRR, Beazer East, Inc. and Koppers Industries, Inc. alleging violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act with respect to a facility in Galesburg, Illinois. This facility is not operated by BNRR. The proceeding may result in monetary sanctions in excess of $100,000. BNRR and Beazer East, Inc. have made an offer to the State of Illinois to settle this matter.
MERGER-RELATED LITIGATION
Numerous complaints were filed arising out of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 29, 1994, as amended, between BNI and SFP. On June 30, 1994, shortly after announcement of the proposed BNI-SFP merger ("Merger"), two purported stockholder class action suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Miller v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13587; Cosentino v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13588). On July 1, 1994, two additional purported stockholder class action suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Fielding v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13591; Wadsworth v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13597).
The actions named as defendants SFP, the individual members of the SFP Board of Directors, and BNI. In general, the actions variously alleged that SFP's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders by agreeing to the proposed merger for allegedly "grossly inadequate" consideration in light of recent operating results of SFP, recent trading prices of SFP's common stock and other alleged factors, by allegedly failing to take all necessary steps to ensure that stockholders will receive the maximum value realizable for their shares (including allegedly failing to actively pursue the acquisition of SFP by other companies or conducting an adequate "market check"), and by allegedly failing to disclose to stockholders the full extent of the future earnings potential of SFP, as well as the current value of its assets. The Miller and Fielding cases further alleged that the proposed Merger was unfairly timed and structured and, if consummated, would allegedly unfairly deprive the stockholders of standing to pursue certain pending stockholder derivative litigation. Plaintiffs also alleged that BNI was responsible for aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duty committed by the SFP Board. The actions sought certification of a class action on behalf of SFP's stockholders. In addition, the actions sought injunctive relief against consummation of the Merger and, in the event that the Merger was consummated, the rescission of the Merger, an award of compensatory or rescissory damages and other damages, including court costs and attorneys' fees, an accounting by defendants of all profits realized by them as a result of the Merger, and various other forms of relief.
On October 6, 1994, shortly after Union Pacific Corporation ("UPC") issued a press release in which it announced a proposal for UPC to acquire SFP (the "UPC Proposal"), plaintiffs in the four lawsuits described above filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware a Consolidated Amended Complaint (Miller v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13587). In their Consolidated Amended Complaint, plaintiffs repeated the allegations contained in their earlier lawsuits and further alleged that, in light of the UPC Proposal, SFP's directors had breached their fiduciary duties by failing to fully inform themselves about and to adequately explore available alternatives to the merger with BNI, including the alternative of a merger transaction with UPC, and by failing to fully inform themselves about the value of SFP. The Consolidated Amended Complaint sought the same relief sought in plaintiffs' earlier lawsuits and, in addition, requested that SFP's directors be ordered to explore alternative transactions and to negotiate in good faith with all interested persons, including UPC.
Also, on October 6, 1994, five additional purported stockholder class action suits relating to SFP's proposed participation in the Merger with BNI were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Weiss v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13779; Lifshitz v. Krebs, C.A. No. 13780; Stein v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13782; Lewis v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13783; Abramson v. Lindig, C.A. No. 13784). On October 7, 1994, three more purported stockholder class action suits relating to SFP's proposed participation in the Merger with BNI were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Graulich v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13786; Anderson v. Santa Fe Pacific
Corporation, C.A. No. 13787; Green v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13788). All of these lawsuits named as defendants SFP and the individual members of the SFP Board of Directors; the Lifshitz case further named BNI as a defendant. In general, these actions variously alleged that, in light of SFP's recent operating results and the UPC Proposal, SFP's directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by purportedly not taking the necessary steps to ensure that SFP's stockholders would receive "maximum value" for their shares of SFP stock, including purportedly refusing to negotiate with UPC or to "seriously consider" the UPC Proposal and failing to announce any active auction or open bidding procedures. The actions generally sought relief that is materially identical to the relief sought in the Miller case, and in addition sought entry of an order requiring SFP's directors to immediately undertake an evaluation of SFP's worth as a merger/acquisition candidate and to establish a process designed to obtain the highest possible price for SFP, including taking steps to "effectively expose" SFP to the marketplace in an effort to create an "active auction" in SFP. The Weiss case further sought entry of an order enjoining SFP's directors from implementing any poison pill or other device designed to thwart the UPC Proposal or any other person's proposal to acquire SFP.
The Anderson lawsuit was subsequently withdrawn. On October 14, 1994, the Chancery Court entered an order consolidating the remaining 11 purported stockholder class action suits under the heading In Re Santa Fe Pacific Corporation Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 13587 (the "Shareholder Litigation").
On October 26, 1994, BNI filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated and Amended Complaint.
On March 6, 1995, plaintiffs in the Shareholder Litigation filed a Revised Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint, which superseded their previously filed complaints. The Revised Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint generally repeated many of the same allegations, and requested relief similar to that requested in plaintiffs' earlier complaints. In addition, the Revised Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint alleged that SFP's directors breached their fiduciary duties: by proceeding with and completing the joint SFP-BNI Tender Offer; by approving and implementing the Shareholder Rights Plan, which purportedly resulted in a "premature ending" of the "bidding process" by allegedly deterring and defeating UPC's acquisition overtures, exempting BNI from its provisions, and "coercing" SFP stockholders to vote in favor of the Merger; by approving the termination fee and expense reimbursement provisions of the Merger Agreement by authorizing the stock repurchase provisions of the Merger Agreement, which allegedly were designed to "lock-up" the Merger by providing stockholders with an "illusory promise" that the Merger Agreement exchange ratio would increase, while reserving SFP's right not to repurchase such stock; and by purportedly failing to disclose all material facts necessary for SFP's stockholders to evaluate in an informed manner and vote on the Merger, including purportedly failing to fully disclose the risks that the ICC would not approve the Merger and purportedly failing to fully disclose SFP's intentions with respect to the repurchase of SFP stock, as permitted by the Merger Agreement, as well as whether there will be a fair opportunity for all SFP stockholders to "participate" in any SFP stock repurchases, and on what basis. As additional relief to that requested in the earlier complaints, plaintiffs requested injunctive and other relief: enjoining consummation of the Merger; ordering SFP, SFP's directors, and BNI to make unspecified supplemental disclosures to stockholders; requiring SFP to conduct a new vote on the Merger subsequent to such disclosures; enjoining SFP from improperly or discriminatorily implementing the Shareholder Rights Plan or any other "defensive" tactic; ordering SFP's directors to take all appropriate steps to enhance SFP's value and attractiveness as a merger or acquisition candidate, including "effectively exposing" SFP to the marketplace by means of an active auction on a "level playing field"; and declaring the termination fee and expense reimbursement provisions of the Merger Agreement invalid and unenforceable.
On March 13, 1995, SFP and SFP's directors filed a motion to dismiss the Shareholder Litigation on the grounds that the Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. BNI also filed a motion to dismiss the Revised Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint. On May 31, 1995, the Delaware Chancery Court rendered its decision granting the motion to dismiss that was filed by SFP and SFP's directors on March 13, 1995 and the motion to dismiss filed by BNI. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Delaware Supreme Court.
On November 22, 1995, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an opinion that affirmed in part and reversed in part the May 31, 1995 decision of the Delaware Chancery Court. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Chancery Court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims that, in taking the alleged "defensive" actions identified in the Revised Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint, including approval and implementation of the Shareholder Rights Plan, SFP's directors violated their fiduciary duties to stockholders. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Chancery Court's dismissal of all other claims asserted by plaintiffs in the litigation, including all claims against BNI.
On December 11, 1995, the SFP defendants filed with the Delaware Chancery Court a motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs' remaining claims in the Shareholder Litigation, which motion is pending. On December 29, 1995, the SFP defendants filed their Answer to plaintiffs' Revised Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint.
BNSF believes this lawsuit is meritless and continues to oppose it vigorously.
ICC MERGER CASE
On October 13, 1994, BNI, BNRR, SFP, and ATSF ("Applicants") filed a railroad merger and control application with the ICC, Finance Docket No. 32549, Burlington Northern Inc. and Burlington Northern Railroad Company-- Control and Merger--Santa Fe Pacific Corporation and The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company. Applicants sought an order, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. (S)(S) 11343-11347 (1988), approving and authorizing BNI's acquisition of control of and merger with SFP, the resulting common control of BNRR and ATSF by BNSF, the consolidation of BNRR and ATSF by BNSF, the consolidation of BNRR and ATSF operations, and the merger of BNRR and ATSF. The ICC approved the application in its written decision served August 23, 1995, which decision was effective as of September 22, 1995. Several petitions for reconsideration or to reopen the ICC's decision were filed by parties to the proceeding and all of these have been denied. Additionally, eight parties to the proceeding filed petitions for review of the ICC's approval decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which petitions are now pending before that court. Each of the petitions for reconsideration or to reopen and for review challenge various aspects of the ICC's decision, including the extent of conditions imposed on its approval. None of these petitions is expected to affect materially the benefits to be realized by the acquisition of common control of BNRR and ATSF by BNSF.
CROW RESERVATION CROSSING ACCIDENT CASE
At approximately 10:15 a.m. on November 22, 1993, there was an accident at a BNRR railroad crossing located within the boundaries of the Crow reservation in which three members of the Crow tribe were killed. The crossing, which is located on a rural gravel road just south of Lodge Grass, Montana, was protected by crossbucks and advance warning signs.
A lawsuit was filed in the Crow Tribal Court (Estates of Red Wolf, Red Horse and Bull Tail v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company, Case No. 94-31) on behalf of the estates of the driver and the two passengers. One of the passenger cases was severed and has yet to go to trial. The other two cases proceeded to trial in January 1996 and, on February 6, 1996, a Crow Tribal Court jury rendered a verdict against BNRR for compensatory damages in the total amount of $250 million.
BNRR has filed an appeal to the Crow Court of Appeals in and for the Crow Indian Reservation, where it will seek, among other things, to have the case dismissed on the basis that the Crow Tribal Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims. If the appellate court fails to grant relief to BNRR, BNRR will pursue its defenses in federal court. On February 26, 1996, the Federal District Court for the District of Montana entered an order enjoining any action by plaintiffs to enforce the judgment pending appeal through the tribal court and federal court systems. BNRR was required to post a $5 million bond with the federal court.
OTHER CLAIMS
BNSF and its subsidiaries also are parties to a number of other legal actions and claims, various governmental proceedings and private civil suits arising in the ordinary course of business, including those related to environmental matters and personal injury claims. For a description of certain claims against SFP Pipelines and the Partnership, see the sections entitled "East Line Civil Litigation and FERC Proceeding," "East Line Civil Litigation," and "FERC Proceeding" under Item 3, Legal Proceedings, of the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995, which sections are hereby incorporated by reference. While the final outcome of these and other legal actions cannot be predicted with certainty, considering among other things the meritorious legal defenses available, it is the opinion of BNSF management that none of these items, when finally resolved, will have a material adverse effect on the annual results of operations, financial position or liquidity of BNSF, although an adverse resolution of a number of these items could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year.
Reference is made to Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements on pages 29 and 30 of BNSF's 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders for information concerning certain pending administrative appeals between BNI and SFP and the Internal Revenue Service, which information is hereby incorporated by reference.
ITEM 4.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
No matters were submitted by BNSF to a vote of its securities holders during the fourth quarter of 1995.
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
Listed below are the names, ages, and positions of all executive officers of BNSF (excluding one executive officer who is also a director of BNSF) and their business experience during the past five years. Executive officers hold office until their successors are elected or appointed, or until their earlier death, resignation, or removal.
JOHN Q. ANDERSON, 44
Senior Vice President-Coal, Metals and Minerals Business Group since February 1996. Prior to that, Senior Vice President-Coal Business Group since September 1995, Executive Vice President, Coal Business Group of BNRR since June 1994, and Executive Vice President, Marketing and Sales of BNRR since February 1990.
DOUGLAS J. BABB, 43
Senior Vice President and Chief of Staff since September 1995. Prior to that, Vice President and General Counsel of BNRR from December 1986.
JAMES B. DAGNON, 56
Senior Vice President-Employee Relations since September 1995. Prior to that, Executive Vice President, Employee Relations of BNI since January 1992, and Senior Vice President, Employee Relations of BNI since August 1991.
THOMAS N. HUND, 42
Vice President and Controller since September 1995. Prior to that, Vice President and Controller of SFP since July 1990.
DONALD G. MCINNES, 55
Senior Vice President and Chief Operations Officer since September 1995. Prior to that, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of ATSF since January 1994, Senior Vice President-Intermodal Business Unit of ATSF since January 1992, and Vice President-Intermodal of ATSF since July 1989.
JEFFREY R. MORELAND, 51
Senior Vice President-Law and General Counsel since September 1995. Prior to that, Vice President-Law and General Counsel of SFP from October 1994, and Vice President-Law and General Counsel of ATSF from June 1989.
CHARLES L. SCHULTZ, 48
Senior Vice President-Intermodal and Automotive Business Unit since February 1996. Prior to that, Vice President-Intermodal from September 1995, Vice President-Intermodal of ATSF from January 1994, Vice President-Management Services of ATSF from June 1991, and Vice President-Information Services of ATSF from July 1989.
DENIS E. SPRINGER, 50
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since September 1995. Prior to that, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of SFP from October 1993, Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of SFP from January 1992, and Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of SFP from January 1991.
GREGORY T. SWIENTON, 46
Senior Vice President-Consumer and Industrial Business Unit since February 1996. Prior to that, Senior Vice President-Industrial Business Unit from September 1995, Executive Vice President, Intermodal Business of BNRR from June 1994, and Executive Director-Europe and Africa (Brussels) of DHL Worldwide Express (international freight company) from January 1991.
PART II
ITEM 5.
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
Information as to the principal markets on which the common stock of BNSF is traded, the high and low sales prices of such stock for the two years ending December 31, 1995 (or the common stock of BNI prior to September 22, 1995) and the frequency and amount of dividends declared on such stock during such period, is set forth below the heading "Quarterly Financial Data-Unaudited" on page 39 of BNSF's 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders and is hereby incorporated by reference. The approximate number of record holders of the common stock at January 31, 1996 was 85,000.
ITEM 6.
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
There is disclosed on page 1 of BNSF's 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders selected financial data of BNSF for each of the last five fiscal years. Such data with respect to the following topics are incorporated by reference: Revenues; Operating income (loss); Income (loss) before extraordinary item and cumulative effect of change in accounting method; Accounting change/Extraordinary item; Net income (loss); Primary earnings (loss) per share; Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share; Dividends declared per common share; Total assets; Long-term debt, including current portion and commercial paper; and Redeemable preferred stock.
ITEM 7.
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations appearing on pages 13 through 20 of BNSF's 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders is hereby incorporated by reference.
ITEM 8.
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
The consolidated financial statements of BNSF and subsidiary companies, together with the report thereon of Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P. dated February 15, 1996, appearing on pages 21 through 39 of BNSF's 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders, are hereby incorporated by reference.
ITEM 9.
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
None.
PART III
ITEM 10.
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
Information concerning the directors of BNSF is provided on pages 2 through 5 of BNSF's proxy statement dated March 5, 1996, under the heading "Name, Age and Business Experience of Nominees for Director" and the information under that heading is hereby incorporated by reference.
Information concerning the executive officers of BNSF (excluding one executive officer who is also a director of BNSF) is included in Part I of this Report.
ITEM 11.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Information concerning the compensation of directors and executive officers of BNSF is provided on pages 6 through 7 under the heading "Directors' Compensation" and pages 26 through 33 under the heading "EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND OTHER INFORMATION" in BNSF's proxy statement dated March 5, 1996, and the information under those headings is hereby incorporated by reference.
ITEM 12.
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT
Information concerning the ownership of BNSF equity securities by certain beneficial owners and management is provided on pages 8 through 10 under the headings "SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS" and "SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF MANAGEMENT" of BNSF's proxy statement dated March 5, 1996, and is hereby incorporated by reference.
ITEM 13.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
Information concerning certain relationships and related transactions is provided on page 7 under the heading "Certain Relationships and Related Transactions" of BNSF's proxy statement dated March 5, 1996, and the information under that heading is hereby incorporated by reference.
PART IV
ITEM 14.
ITEM 14. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES, AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K
(a) The following documents are filed as a part of this report:
- -------- (*Incorporated by reference from the indicated pages of BNSF's 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders.)
2. Consolidated Financial Statement Schedules for the three years ended December 31, 1995:
Schedules other than that listed above are omitted because they are not required or applicable, or the required information is included in the consolidated financial statements or related notes.
3. Exhibits:
See Index to Exhibits on pages E-1-E-4 for a description of the exhibits filed as a part of this Report.
(b) Reports on Form 8-K
BNSF filed the following Reports on Form 8-K during the quarter ended December 31, 1995:
Registrant filed Amendment No. 1 on Form 8-K/A dated November 13, 1995 to Current Report on Form 8-K (Date of earliest event reported: September 22, 1995) which included under Item 7.B., Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits, unaudited pro forma financial information reflecting the business combination of BNI and SFP effective September 22, 1995.
Registrant filed a Current Report on Form 8-K (Date of earliest event reported: November 21, 1995) which referenced under Item 5, Other Events, the establishment by the registrant on November 21, 1995 of two new credit facilities allowing borrowings of $2.5 billion and a commercial paper program.
Registrant filed a Current Report on Form 8-K (Date of earliest event reported: November 30, 1995) which referenced under Item 5, Other Events, and incorporated by reference a pro forma computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges for the nine months ended September 30, 1995 and the year ended December 31, 1994, to reflect the business combination of BNI and SFP effective September 22, 1995.
SIGNATURES
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION, PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, HAS DULY CAUSED THIS REPORT TO BE SIGNED ON ITS BEHALF BY THE UNDERSIGNED, THEREUNTO DULY AUTHORIZED.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION
/s/ Denis E. Springer By: _________________________________ Denis E. Springer Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Dated: March 29, 1996
PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, THIS REPORT HAS BEEN SIGNED BELOW BY THE FOLLOWING PERSONS ON BEHALF OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION AND IN THE CAPACITIES AND ON THE DATE INDICATED.
S-1
/s/ Jeffrey R. Moreland *By _________________________________ Jeffrey R. Moreland Senior Vice President-Law and General Counsel Attorney in Fact
Dated: March 29, 1996
S-2
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
To the Stockholders and Board of Directors of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and Subsidiaries
Our report on the consolidated financial statements of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and Subsidiaries has been incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K from page 21 of the 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation. In connection with our audits of such consolidated financial statements, we have also audited the related financial statement schedule listed in the index of this Form 10-K.
In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information required to be included therein.
COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
Fort Worth, Texas February 15, 1996
SCHEDULE II
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995, 1994 AND 1993 (IN MILLIONS)
- -------- (1) Represents SFP's recorded liability at date of Merger (2) Principally represents cash payments (3) Classified in the consolidated balance sheet as follows:
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
- -------- *Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.
E-1
- -------- *Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.
E-2
- -------- *Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.
E-3
E-4