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.
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.
The Defendant and others discussed, exchanged information, or agreed with each other before bids were opened as to which person or entity would be the successful bidder. The Defendant and others agreed between or among themselves to allocate certain territories, governmental entities, private businesses, or other areas.
State of Ohio filed a complaint regarding the BP/Amoco merger, alleging potential violations of state antitrust laws.
State sought to enjoin merger or to remedy anticompetitive effects from proposed acquisition by petroleum company of competitor.
Clark Oil & Refining Corp., et al v. Ashcroft; 639 S.W.2d 594; 1982 Mo. LEXIS 396; 1982-2 Trade Cas. (CCH)P64,921
In declaratory judgment action brought by oil company, Missouri Supreme Court held that Attorney General may bring parens patriae action under 15 U.S.C. § 15c pursuant to the authority conferred by Missouri law.