Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Ware-Klump Oil Co. of Missouri, Inc.; 1994-2 Trade Cases ¶ 70,717
Action brought under Motor Fuel Marketing Act and Missouri Antitrust Act against seller of motor fuel and motor fuel jobber alleging sale of motor fuel below cost causing the unlawful effects described by the Motor Fuel Marketing Act. Consent injunction enjoined future violations and ordered reimbursement for costs of investigation.
Washington v. Texaco, Inc., No. C97-1980 (W.D. Wash. 1997)
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Texaco, Inc. (Texaco) and Shell Oil Company (Shell) from entering into a joint venture, arguing that such an agreement would substantially impair competition for gasoline in Washington, Oregon, and the States in general.
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.
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.
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, No. 92-civ-00489 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 30, 1992)
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.
Texas v. Big Spring Fuel Company, et al, Cause No. 96-04-38413, 118th Judicial District, Howard County, Texas
State of Texas filed suit alleging defendants were conspiring to fix prices relating to the sale of gasoline in and around Howard County, Texas.
