U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-04055 (D.N.J. Mar. 21, 2024)
Sixteen states and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Apple for monopolization or attempted monopolization of smartphone markets in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleges that Apple illegally maintains a monopoly over…
FTC and Plaintiff States v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-01495 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2023)
The FTC and plaintiff states alleged that Amazon, an online retail and technology company, is a monopolist that uses a set of interlocking anticompetitive and unfair strategies to illegally maintain its monopoly power. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon’s actions allow it to stop rivals and sellers from lowering prices, degrade quality for shoppers, overcharge sellers,…
Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiff States and Citibank (June 2018)
Forty-two plaintiff states reached a $100 million settlement with Citibank for fraudulent conduct involving interest rate manipulation that had a significant impact on consumers and financial markets around the world. UBS’ fraudulent conduct involved the manipulation of LIBOR (the London Interbank Offered Rate). LIBOR is a benchmark interest rate that affects financial instruments worth trillions…
Michigan v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.
Chesapeake and Encana were charged with bid-rigging of oil and gas leases on public and private lands. Encana settled the charges. the Attorney General alleged that the two companies had agreed to split up the Michigan counties and each company would be an exclusive bidder in one county. the price of oil and gas leases dropped from $1510 per acre to $40 per acre in six months. The two counts of the indictment relate to one contract or conspiracy in restraint of commerce allegedly occuring between May – June 2010 with regard to private landowners; and a second allegedly occurring between August – October 2010 with regard to the State of Michigan’s oil and gas lease auction. Attorney General reached a settlement with Chesapeake after several days of trial. Chesapeake agreed to pay $25 million and plead no contest to one count each of criminal attempted antitrust violations and false pretenses, both misdemeanors. There was a delayed sentencing agreement under which the charges would be dismissed if Chesapeake abides by the agreements for 11 months.
Michigan v. Encana Corp.
Encana and Chesapeake Energy Corp. allegedly collaborated to avoid bidding against each other in Michigan public auctions for oil and gas leases.. the price of the leases fell from $1510 per acre to less than $40 an acre in six months. Encana entered into a settlement and entered a no contest plea to criminal attempted antitrust violation, a misdemeanor, with an 11-month delayed sentence. If Encana abides by the terms of the plea agreement, the criminal case will be dismissed after 11 months. Encana also agreed to pay $5 million civil settlement ($2.5 million to the Dept. of Natural Resources, $2.5 million to the state’s antitrust activities. The company also entered into a 4-year corporate Integrity Agreement.
Michigan v.Sunoco-Bombay Party Shoppe, Inc.; Michigan v. Shammami
Five gas station owner/operators pleaded guilty and no contest to charges that the engaged in a gasoline price-fixing operation in Madison Heights, Michigan. All five defendants and their associated stations have entered pleas in 6th Circuit Court in Oakland County to violations of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA). The stations involved in the price-fixing operation were all located within two miles of each other. The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that the five stations set their gasoline prices at an artificial level, within a penny or two of each other. The scheme, which violated Michigan antitrust law, was an attempt to increase profits from gasoline sales by eliminating competition in the Madison Heights area. The Attorney General’s office received a tip from another Madison Heights gas station owner who was pressured to participate in the price-fixing operation. Information obtained during the investigation showed the stations all set their prices within a penny or two of each other on at least five days: February 8, 2011, February 11, 2011, February 23, 2011, February 27, 2011, and March 3, 2011. Sentencing for some is pending, but all paid substantial fines.
Michigan v. J&A Quick Stop; Michigan v. Yaldou
Five gas station owner/operators pleaded guilty and no contest to charges that the engaged in a gasoline price-fixing operation in Madison Heights, Michigan. All five defendants and their associated stations have entered pleas in 6th Circuit Court in Oakland County to violations of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA). The stations involved in the price-fixing operation were all located within two miles of each other. The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that the five stations set their gasoline prices at an artificial level, within a penny or two of each other. The scheme, which violated Michigan antitrust law, was an attempt to increase profits from gasoline sales by eliminating competition in the Madison Heights area. The Attorney General’s office received a tip from another Madison Heights gas station owner who was pressured to participate in the price-fixing operation. Information obtained during the investigation showed the stations all set their prices within a penny or two of each other on at least five days: February 8, 2011, February 11, 2011, February 23, 2011, February 27, 2011, and March 3, 2011. Sentencing for some is pending, but all paid substantial fines.
Michigan v. CITGO-Durga Lakeshmi Inc.; Michigan v. Vijayaraghavan
Five gas station owner/operators pleaded guilty and no contest to charges that the engaged in a gasoline price-fixing operation in Madison Heights, Michigan. All five defendants and their associated stations have entered pleas in 6th Circuit Court in Oakland County to violations of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA). The stations involved in the price-fixing operation were all located within two miles of each other. The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that the five stations set their gasoline prices at an artificial level, within a penny or two of each other. The scheme, which violated Michigan antitrust law, was an attempt to increase profits from gasoline sales by eliminating competition in the Madison Heights area. The Attorney General’s office received a tip from another Madison Heights gas station owner who was pressured to participate in the price-fixing operation. Information obtained during the investigation showed the stations all set their prices within a penny or two of each other on at least five days: February 8, 2011, February 11, 2011, February 23, 2011, February 27, 2011, and March 3, 2011. Sentencing for some is pending, but all paid substantial fines.
Michigan v.Sphinx-Monster Oil LLC, Michigan v. Abdelhamid
Five gas station owner/operators pleaded guilty and no contest to charges that the engaged in a gasoline price-fixing operation in Madison Heights, Michigan. All five defendants and their associated stations have entered pleas in 6th Circuit Court in Oakland County to violations of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA). The stations involved in the price-fixing operation were all located within two miles of each other. The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that the five stations set their gasoline prices at an artificial level, within a penny or two of each other. The scheme, which violated Michigan antitrust law, was an attempt to increase profits from gasoline sales by eliminating competition in the Madison Heights area. The Attorney General’s office received a tip from another Madison Heights gas station owner who was pressured to participate in the price-fixing operation. Information obtained during the investigation showed the stations all set their prices within a penny or two of each other on at least five days: February 8, 2011, February 11, 2011, February 23, 2011, February 27, 2011, and March 3, 2011. Sentencing for some is pending, but all paid substantial fines.
Michigan v.Marathon-Supergas, Michigan v. Harajli
Five gas station owner/operators pleaded guilty and no contest to charges that the engaged in a gasoline price-fixing operation in Madison Heights, Michigan. All five defendants and their associated stations have entered pleas in 6th Circuit Court in Oakland County to violations of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA). The stations involved in the price-fixing operation were all located within two miles of each other. The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that the five stations set their gasoline prices at an artificial level, within a penny or two of each other. The scheme, which violated Michigan antitrust law, was an attempt to increase profits from gasoline sales by eliminating competition in the Madison Heights area. The Attorney General’s office received a tip from another Madison Heights gas station owner who was pressured to participate in the price-fixing operation. Information obtained during the investigation showed the stations all set their prices within a penny or two of each other on at least five days: February 8, 2011, February 11, 2011, February 23, 2011, February 27, 2011, and March 3, 2011. Sentencing for some is pending, but all paid substantial fines.
