Utah v. Phillips Petroleum Co. and Conoco, Inc., No. 2 02 CV-0982 (D. Utah 2002)
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Phillips Petroleum Co. (Phillips Petroleum) and Conoco, Inc. (Conoco) from entering into a merger agreement, arguing that the merger would substantially impair competition for refining bulk supply and sale of gasoline.
Oregon et al. v. Valero Energy Corp., No. 01-1830 K1 (D. OR. Dec. 18, 2001)
States sought to enjoin the proposed merger between Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) and Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation (Ultramar), arguing that the merger would substantially lessen competition in the bulk supply and wholesale marketing of gasoline.
In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL-150; 1992-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 69,925 (C.D. Cal. 1992)
In 1973, The States of Florida and Connecticut sued several named petroleum companies in each individual state’s federal court. The States alleged that the companies conspired to raise or stabilize prices for refined oil products and they continually engaged in the mutual exchange of pricing and price-related information. Further, the States alleged that the Defendants conspired to create an artificial scarcity of crude and refined oil and that the oil companies conspired not to compete in bidding on plaintiffs annual bulk sale petroleum supply contracts. California, Arizona, Washington and Oregon also sued
New Jersey v. Exxon Corp. No. 1:99CV03183 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 1999); Alaska v. Exxon Corp. No. A99-618-CV (D. Alaska, Nov. 30, 1999); Texas v. Exxon Corp. No. 3-99CV 2709-L (N.D. Texas, Dallas, Dec. 3, 1999); California v. Exxon
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin the merger between Exxon Corporation (Exxon) and Mobil Corporation (Mobil), alleging that the merger would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because the acquisition would substantially lessen competition and/or tend to lessen competition in relevant markets in each of the States.
California v. BP Amoco/p.l.c., 3:00-cv-00420-SI (N.D. Cal, Apr. 13, 2000); In the Matter of the British Petroleum Company and Amoco Corp. File No. 981-0345 1998 WL 910216
Plaintiff States, jointly with the Federal Trade Commission, sought to enjoin the merger between British Petroleum Company (BP) and Amoco Corporation (Amoco). It was alleged that the proposed merger would effectively reduce competition or create a monopoly in the sale of gasoline.
California, et al., v. Chevron Corporation and Texaco, Inc. No. 01-07746 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2001)
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Chevron Corporation (Chevron) and Texaco, Inc. (Texaco) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in the markets for refining, wholesaling, and retailing of gasoline and other motor vehicles; aviation gasoline and jet fuel; and California crude oil.
Tennessee v. Sam Lutter Oil Co., No. 3-96-0778 (M.D. Tenn., Aug., 22, 1996)
State sought damages, civil penalties and forfeiture of the corporate charter, alleging that Defendant, Sam Lutter Oil, Co., conspired with others to fix the retail prices of gasoline.
Washington v. BP Oil Company
BP Oil purchased all of Exxon?s retail gas stations in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. Under the settlement, BP was required to sell certain stations to reduce market share.
Washington v. Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc., No. C91-39 (W.D. Wash. 1991)
Texaco purchased all of Shell’s retail gasoline stations in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. Texaco agreed to sell stations with a combined volume of 12 million gallons per year in the relevant market.
Washington v. Tosco Corp., No. C97-1773 WD (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 1997); see Washington and Tosco Settle Merger Case with Consent Decree Requiring Spin-Offs, 73 Antitrust & Trade Reg. Rep. (BNA) 514 (Nov. 27, 1997)
Merger review revealed concern about access to Tosco’s gasoline terminal space and some retail consolidation.
- « Previous
- Next »