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.
Massachusetts v. Suiza Foods Corp., No. 01 CV 11097 DPW (D. Mass. July 6, 2001)
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Suiza Food Corporation (Suiza) and Stop & Shop Supermarket Company (Stop & Shop) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in New England for the processing and sale of fluid milk.
U.S. v. Cargill Inc., No. 6:97-CV-6161 (W.D.N.Y. July 22, 1997)
The U.S. and Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Akzo and Cargill, Inc. (Cargill) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would substantially reduce competition in the mining and sale of salt products.
Texas v. Conoco, Inc. and Phillips Petroleum Company (D.C. TX, 2002); Missouri v. Conoco Inc., No. 02-4190-CV-W-NKC (W.D. Mo. Oct. 2,
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Conoco, Inc. (Conoco) and Phillips Petroleum Company (Phillips Petroleum) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition for natural gas gathering and for natural gas liquids fractionation.
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.
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.
Alaska v. Safeway, Inc., No. 3AN-99-4371 Civil. (Alaska Superior Court April 13, 1999) (1999 WL 1209785)
The State of Alaska investigated the proposed merger of two large supermarkets for potential antitrust violations. The investigation resulted in the execution of a consent decree that required the divestiture of seven stores in relevant markets to a viable competitor.
New York v. Service Corporation International, 99 Civ. 11391 (JSM) (S.D.N.Y. final judgment, Nov. 19, 1999)
New York challenged a series of acquisitions that Service Corporation International (SCI) made of funeral homes in New York City that serve the Jewish community, allegedly leading to monopolization of and high prices in that market. The matter was settled by a consent decree requiring SCI to divest a funeral business in Manhattan, Plaza Memorial Chapel, plus two funeral homes in Brooklyn.
New York v. Allied Waste Industries, Inc.,No. 00CV0363 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
New York challenged the acquisition of assets of two local waste hauling companies in Westchester County, NY by a large national firm, Allied Waste Industries, Inc., already active in the county. Matter was settled by divestiture of five Allied and one other hauling routes and certain transfer station disposal rights.
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.
