If you are looking for information about Chesapeake Energy price-fixing lawsuits, read this article. If you are interested in learning about what this class-action lawsuit claims, you will find that you have many options available to you. This article provides details about Chesapeake Energy, SandRidge, and Encana and discusses the rights and responsibilities of Class Members.
Chesapeake Energy
A class-action lawsuit alleges that Chesapeake Energy rigged bids, fixed lease prices, and allocated lease interests among itself. The federal antitrust laws prevent companies from conspiring to restrain commerce. The Pennsylvania lawsuit also names Anadarko Petroleum Corp. as a co-conspirator in the price-fixing scheme. Although the companies denied that the price-fixing scheme had taken place, the lawsuit cites evidence that suggests they did.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that royalty payments are based on the cost of gas at the well, and producers are allowed to deduct post-production expenses from their royalty payments. Chesapeake, the state’s largest producer, is accused of paying high costs, overpaying affiliated companies, and docking landowners for gas produced on their properties. These issues have led to lawsuits from landowners, which allege that Chesapeake improperly rigged gas prices by docking royalty payments.
Encana
The company pleaded guilty to antitrust violations in a state land lease auction. In a separate lawsuit, Chesapeake was found guilty of rigging lease bids with individual landowners. However, in that case, the company pleaded no contest and settled for only $5 million. That was enough for the state court to dismiss the other antitrust charges against it.
The company agreed to settle the price-fixing claims of thousands of landowners if the federal court approves its $6.95 million settlement. The deal supposedly resolves claims that Chesapeake and SandRidge conspired to rig bids and fix prices in oil and gas leases in the Anadarko Basin.
SandRidge
The plaintiffs in the SandRidge Chesapeake and Chesapeake Price-Fix-Lawsuits claim that the companies were in collusion to artificially depress royalty payments and stabilize bonus payments. The companies were also accused of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by illegally allocating geographic areas and rigging lease bids.
One of the most recent SandRidge Chesapeaka price-fixing lawsuits is filed against the company by an Oklahoma oilman named Aubrey McClendon. In 1989, McClendon and Ward founded Chesapeake. Ward left the company in 2006 to start SandRidge Energy Inc. Despite the charges against Chesapeake, it is unlikely that the company will be criminally prosecuted.
Class members
The Chesapeake Energy settlement represents a small portion of past deductions, but it still amounts to millions of dollars for class members. The case alleges that the company conspired to rig bids, fix lease prices, and allocate lease interest among itself. These practices violate federal antitrust laws, which prohibit companies from conspiring to restrain commerce. Attorneys for class members contend that the Chesapeake Energy settlement represents only 8 percent of past deductions, but it’s not too late to pursue recovery.
The court held that the class members’ claims were similar because they were based on the same legal theory and course of conduct. The court also found that the defendant violated the statutes, miscast the complaint, and obtained attorney fees by avoiding class-wide liability. Despite its decision, Marron’s behavior diverted attention from the plaintiff’s claims and tainted the case.
Classwide damages
Although the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, it rejected the defendants’ arguments that they were not entitled to classwide damages. The defendants argued that their price fixing model was flawed because some consumers benefited from the products, while others purchased the product based on competitor statements. The court cited the plaintiffs’ theory that consumers’ willingness to pay could be a measure of the price premium in an efficient market.
A recent case involved a class action in which plaintiffs sought environmental damages from the defendant. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant was negligent and breached their insurance contracts by failing to pay them for the diminished value of their repaired vehicles. They also claimed that State Farm violated state consumer protection laws. They also disputed the size of the class and the number of attorneys’ fees and punitive damages.
Classwide distribution
Plaintiffs in Chesapeake Price-Fixing Lawsuits filed in 2011 sought to establish a class for consumers who received mailings about the company’s practices. Plaintiffs argued that the company’s marketing strategy misrepresented the antibacterial properties of the soap sold. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, but they were later able to win the case by submitting testimony from a new economist.