People of California v. Vitol, Inc. et al., (Cal. Super. Ct. (San Francisco Cty.)
Plaintiff state sued two gasoline trading firms, Vitol Inc. and SK Energy Americas, alleging that they took advantage of market disruptions from a 2015 refinery explosion in Torrance to improperly drive up the gasoline prices. The state sought an injunction, damages, restitution, and civil penalties. The complaint alleged that the two companies made manipulative trades…
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.
Alaska v. Tesoro Alaska Co. No. 3AN-16- (Ak. Super .Ct. 3d Dist.)
Tesoro agreed with Flint Hills Resources (FHR) last year to purchase most of FHR’s Alaska fuel storage assets, including FHR’s storage facility at the Port of Anchorage. Tesoro also owns two storage facilities at the Port of Anchorage. After an investigation, the state determined that Tesoro’s acquisition of FHR’s tank farm would limit the ability of competitors to import fuel through the Port of Anchorage and impair competition in markets for some fuel products, including gasoline. The state entered into a consent agreement with Tesoro Alaska Company that requires Tesoro to sell a petroleum fuel terminal at the Port of Anchorage in order to preserve competition in Alaska fuel markets. Tesoro has agreed to sell its Terminal 1 to a qualified buyer. Tesoro will have one year from the approval of the Consent Decree to sell the terminal. If it cannot find a buyer, it must lease the terminal.
Pennsylvania v. Arclight Energy Partners Fund VI et al., No. 1:15-CV-2493 Jan. 4, 2016)
Pennsylvania filed suit, alleging the proposed merger of two of the largest gasoline and distillate terminaling services in the state, ArcLight and Gulf Oil would violate both the Clayton Act and Pennsylvania state law by lessening competition in three markets, Altoona, Harrisburg and Scranton. The state sought injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. The state and the parties entered into a settlement in which the defendants would agree to divest their terminal assets in Pennsylvania – located in Altoona, Pittston, Mechanicsburg and Williamsport – to New York-based Arc Logistics within 20 days of the acquisition being finalized. After the divestiture, ArcLight is further bound to assist Arc Logistics by providing transitional assistance at a reasonable cost for one year, serve as a customer of the divested terminals for two years and supply ethanol and biodiesel fuels and related terminaling services for five years. The settlement also allows any ArcLight petroleum terminal customer to sever its contract with the company without penalty or charge for six months after the divestiture date, and for ArcLight to provide them with notice of the right to do so. The FTC had previously entered into a settlement with the parties.
Oregon ex rel. Kroger v. Kumar, No. 0903806CV, (Or. Cir. Ct., Klamath Cty. Feb. 5, 2010)
Defendants owned a retail market that sells fuel. State alleged that the defendants used threats and intimidation to seek to fix the price of gas at Ray’s Market and Klamath River Gas, a nearby station. State also alleged violations of its consumer protection act because the advertised price of gas was less than what was charged at the pump. Defendants were enjoined from future violations and paid $5,000, which the state agreed to accept in lieu of the $25,000 award.
Florida v. Ryan E. Phillips et al., Case No. 2006-CA-1986-C, Okaloosa Cty. Cir. Ct.
Florida settled allegations of price fixing in northwestern part of the state after price-gouging investigation revealed that gasoline station owner who sold station conditioned the sale on new owner matching prices as original owners station.
