NORFOLK SOUTHERN DEADLINE ALERT

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors that a Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Norfolk Southern Corporation and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Norfolk Southern Corporation (“Norfolk Southern” or the “Company”) (NYSE: NSC) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Norfolk Southern securities between October 28, 2020 and March 3, 2023, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). Investors have until May 15,2023 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Click here to participate in the action.

Norfolk Southern is a rail transportation company that implemented a strategy known as “Precision Scheduled Railroading” (“PSR”), which is associated with hyper-efficient operational changes designed to increase revenues and decrease costs. Operational changes typically include reductions in staff; longer, heavier trains that can stretch up to miles in length; and tighter schedules.

The Norfolk Southern class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Norfolk Southern’s PSR, including its use of longer, heavier trains staffed by fewer personnel, had led to Norfolk Southern suffering increased train derailments and a materially increased risk of future derailments; (ii) Norfolk Southern’s PSR was part of a culture of increased risk-taking at the expense of reasonable safety precautions due to Norfolk Southern’s near-term focus solely on profits; (iii) Norfolk Southern’s PSR rendered Norfolk Southern more vulnerable to train derailments and train derailments with potentially more severe human, financial, legal, and environmental consequences; (iv) Norfolk Southern’s capital spending and replacement programs were designed to prioritize profits over Norfolk Southern’s ability to provide safe, efficient, and reliable rail transportation services; (v) Norfolk Southern’s lobbying efforts had undermined Norfolk Southern’s ability to provide safe, efficient, and reliable rail transportation services; (vi) Norfolk Southern’s commitment to reducing operating expenses as part of its PSR goals undermined worker safety and Norfolk Southern’s purported “commitment to an injury-free workplace” because Norfolk Southern’s PSR plan prioritized reducing expenses through fewer personnel, longer trains, and less spending on safety training, technology, and equipment such as hot bearing wayside detectors (a/k/a “hotboxes”) and acoustic sensors; (vii) Norfolk Southern’s rail services were, as a result of its adoption of PSR principles, more susceptible to accidents that could cause serious economic and bodily harm to Norfolk Southern, its workers, its customers, third parties, and the environment; and (viii) Norfolk Southern had failed to put in place responsive practices and procedures to minimize the threat to communities in the event that these communities suffered the derailment of a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous and toxic materials.