Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/303079/US-Department-of-Justice-Antitrust-Case-Brief-00632-1645
Timestamp: 2016-10-21 22:47:57
Document Index: 271516616

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 22', '§ 1391', '§ 1']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SEMINOLE FERTILIZER CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ) COMPLAINT
The United States of America, plaintiff, by its attorneys, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil action to obtain equitable relief against the above-named defendant, and complains and alleges as follows: I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This complaint is filed under Section 4 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 4, as amended, in order to prevent and restrain violations by defendant of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. 2. At the time of the alleged violation, defendant
conducted business in the Middle District of Florida within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 22 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Some of the
unlawful acts described herein were conceived, performed, or made effective within Hillsborough County, Florida. II. DEFENDANT 3. Until all of its assets were sold in May 1993,
defendant was one of the largest domestic manufacturers of diammonium phosphate, the leading internationally traded phosphatic fertilizer. Before its assets were sold, defendant
maintained its corporate offices in Stamford, Connecticut, and operated production and storage facilities in central Florida, near Tampa. Defendant was one of the largest suppliers of
phosphatic fertilizers in the world, and was a major supplier to customers in China, India, and Pakistan, among other countries. III. TRADE AND COMMERCE 4. Phosphatic fertilizer is sold to retailers and end-
users by manufacturers and distributors throughout the United States. Manufacturers and distributors of phosphatic fertilizer,
including defendant, sell or transport phosphatic fertilizer to customers located throughout the United States as well as outside the United States. 5. Ammonia, a primary component of diammonium phosphate
fertilizer, is stored in large tanks and transported via pipeline, railway, ship, or truck to facilities located inside
and outside of the United States that produce phosphatic fertilizer. 6. The ammonia tank and pipeline interest that is the
subject of this cause of action is located in the Port of Tampa, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the Tampa Facility). time of the alleged violation, ammonia stored at the Tampa Facility was sold to manufacturers and distributors of phosphatic fertilizers located throughout the United States as well as outside of the United States. A substantial quantity of that At the
ammonia passed through the pipeline that is part of the Tampa Facility in the flow of and substantially affecting interstate and foreign trade and commerce. Many of the transactions related
to the sale by auction of the Tampa Facility, which is the subject of this cause of action, were in the flow of and substantially affected interstate and foreign trade and commerce. IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION 7. During 1991 the Tampa Facility, which was then owned by
the Royster Company ("Royster"), consisted of an ammonia terminal that included a storage tank and a one-half interest in a pipeline system that was connected to the tank. Defendant owned
the other one-half interest in the pipeline system. 8. On April 8, 1991, Royster filed for bankruptcy
protection, and in November 1991 the Federal Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, ordered that the
Tampa Facility be sold at auction. March 12, 1992. 9.
The auction was scheduled for
Representatives of defendant, Norsk Hydro USA Inc.
("Norsk USA"), and Farmland Industries, Inc. ("Farmland") met on March 5, 1992, at the Rihga Royal Hotel in New York, New York, and discussed sharing pipeline capacity and the cost of bidding on the Tampa Facility. At the conclusion of the meeting,
defendant, Norsk USA, and Farmland reached a tentative agreement which was later reduced to writing. 10. On March 9 and March 10, 1992, representatives of
defendant and Norsk USA discussed the terms of the agreement by telephone on several occasions. 11. Prior to the execution of the agreement described in
paragraph 12 below, Norsk USA and Seminole were informed that a third bidder which had completed the requirements for bidding at the auction of the Tampa Facility had withdrawn from the bidding. 12. Two hours before the scheduled auction on March 12,
1992, defendant and Norsk USA executed a written agreement which provided that Norsk USA would receive bid support of up to $2.5 million from defendant if necessary to defeat a competing bid. In exchange, Norsk USA agreed to give defendant increased This
pipeline capacity if Norsk USA was the successful bidder.
agreement had the effect of eliminating defendant, Norsk USA’s chief rival, as a viable competing bidder for the Tampa Facility. Almost immediately after signing the agreement, defendant stated that it would not be attending the auction.
Moments before the beginning of the auction of the
Tampa Facility, a representative of defendant appeared at the auction site and stated that defendant was withdrawing from the bidding, leaving Norsk USA as the only remaining bidder. 14. Norsk USA and Farmland intended for the Tampa Facility
to be an asset of Farmland Hydro Limited Partnership ("FHLP"), a joint venture formed by them in November 1991, after the Tampa Facility had been acquired by Norsk USA. 15. Farmland participated in the negotiations leading to
the March 12 agreement, assented to Norsk USA’s execution of the agreement on its behalf as a partner in FHLP, and directly benefitted from the agreement because of its partnership with Norsk USA. PRAYER WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays: 1. That the Court adjudge and decree that the defendant
entered into an unlawful agreement in unreasonable restraint of interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; 2. That defendant, its officers, directors, agents,
employees, and successors, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on behalf of it, be enjoined, restrained, and prohibited for a period of ten years from, in any manner, directly or indirectly, soliciting, entering, or attempting to enter any agreement to submit any jointly determined bids for the acquisition of any asset used principally in the manufacture, processing, production, storage, distribution, or sale of
fertilizer or ammonia ("fertilizer asset") located in the United States with any other person that is known or reasonably should be known by defendant to be a potential bidder on the sale of that fertilizer asset or with any other person that has announced an intention to bid on the sale of that fertilizer asset; 3. That defendant, its officers, directors, agents,
employees, and successors, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on behalf of it, be further enjoined, restrained, and prohibited for a period of ten years from, in any manner, directly or indirectly, soliciting, entering, or attempting to enter any agreement to set or establish the price or other terms and conditions of any bids for the acquisition of any fertilizer asset located in the United States; 4. That plaintiff have such other and further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper; and
5. Dated:
That plaintiff recover the costs of this action. , 1997
Belinda A. Barnett Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division 75 Spring Street, S.W. Suite 1176 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
John T. Orr Chief, Atlanta Office
US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00632-1645 by legalmatters5 viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedUnited States v. Buford, 28 U.S. 12 (1830)by Scribd Government DocsPRI Retractionby BobLevinDavid Stern v US Bankby Matthew Seth SarelsonUnited States v. Robert Schaffer, 664 F.2d 824, 11th Cir. (1981)by Scribd Government DocsSoutheast LandCo, LLC v. 150 Beachview Holdings, LLC - Document No. 6by Justia.comUnited States of America Ex Rel. George Maldonado v. Hon. Wilfred L. Denno, as Warden, Sing Sing Prison, Ossining, New York, United States of America Ex Rel. Nicholas Diblasi v. Hon. Daniel McMann as Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, 348 F.2d 12, 2d Cir. (1965)by Scribd Government DocsGriffin Indictmentby Minnesota Public RadioUnited States v. John L. Remco, 388 F.2d 783, 3rd Cir. (1968)by Scribd Government DocsHouse 64 lawsuitby RedBrowardWorld Government Articleby Hieu PhamHOUSE HEARING, 113TH CONGRESS - SEAN AND DAVID GOLDMAN INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION AND RETURN ACT OF 2013by Scribd Government DocsACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. HALLIER et al docketby ACELitigationWatchZetaXiIssue 18Octoberby Susan HarmonInterphoto Corporation v. Minolta Corporation, 417 F.2d 621, 2d Cir. (1969)by Scribd Government DocsZuari Supply Chainby Sagar OjhaColorado City Motion to Dismiss 082712by Lindsay WhitehurstUnited States v. Gregory Alberico, 604 F.2d 1315, 10th Cir. (1979)by Scribd Government DocsWoodmen of the World/Omaha Woodmen Life Insurance Society et al v. Rudolph et al - Document No. 6by Justia.comBernard Ryan and Robert Ryan, D/B/A Ryan Fruit Company v. St. Johnsbury & Lamoille County Railroad, 290 F.2d 350, 2d Cir. (1961)by Scribd Government DocsPetition of the United States of America as Owner of the United States Coast Guard Vessel Cg-95321, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability. United States of America, David J. Grant, Administrator, 418 F.2d 264, 1st Cir. (1969)by Scribd Government DocsSep-Oct 2003 Page 3 Delaware Sierra Club Newsletterby Delaware Sierra ClubKeith H. Burgess Selected to Serve as General Secretary of Long Island African American Chamber of Commerce, Incby Phil AndrewsSystematix Morning Bulletin - September 16,2011by harshilshah7676United States v. Joseph Carosiello, Paul Ross Prepstein, Michael Harold Rubin. Appeal of Michael Harold Rubin, 439 F.2d 942, 3rd Cir. (1971)by Scribd Government DocsSalvador Bandes, Cross-Appellee v. Harlow & Jones, Inc., Harlow & Jones, Inc., Interpleader-Plaintiff v. Salvador Bandes & David Alvarez, Interpleader-Defendants. Salvador Bandes, Interpleader-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, David Alvarez, Interpleader-Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, 852 F.2d 661, 2d Cir. (1988)by Scribd Government DocsLake City Woman Pleads Guilty to Public Intoxication and Disorderly Conductby thesacnewsECF 71 Redactedby himself2462Grajales v. Bell-OR-Judicial Branch v. Taxpayers?by JournalistABCSimilar to US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00632-1645United States v. Buford, 28 U.S. 12 (1830)PRI RetractionDavid Stern v US BankUnited States v. Robert Schaffer, 664 F.2d 824, 11th Cir. (1981)Southeast LandCo, LLC v. 150 Beachview Holdings, LLC - Document No. 6United States of America Ex Rel. George Maldonado v. Hon. Wilfred L. Denno, as Warden, Sing Sing Prison, Ossining, New York, United States of America Ex Rel. Nicholas Diblasi v. Hon. Daniel McMann as Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, 348 F.2d 12, 2d Cir. (1965)Griffin IndictmentUnited States v. John L. Remco, 388 F.2d 783, 3rd Cir. (1968)House 64 lawsuitWorld Government ArticleHOUSE HEARING, 113TH CONGRESS - SEAN AND DAVID GOLDMAN INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION AND RETURN ACT OF 2013ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. HALLIER et al docketZetaXiIssue 18OctoberInterphoto Corporation v. Minolta Corporation, 417 F.2d 621, 2d Cir. (1969)Zuari Supply ChainColorado City Motion to Dismiss 082712United States v. Gregory Alberico, 604 F.2d 1315, 10th Cir. (1979)Woodmen of the World/Omaha Woodmen Life Insurance Society et al v. Rudolph et al - Document No. 6Bernard Ryan and Robert Ryan, D/B/A Ryan Fruit Company v. St. Johnsbury & Lamoille County Railroad, 290 F.2d 350, 2d Cir. (1961)Petition of the United States of America as Owner of the United States Coast Guard Vessel Cg-95321, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability. United States of America, David J. Grant, Administrator, 418 F.2d 264, 1st Cir. (1969)Sep-Oct 2003 Page 3 Delaware Sierra Club NewsletterKeith H. Burgess Selected to Serve as General Secretary of Long Island African American Chamber of Commerce, IncSystematix Morning Bulletin - September 16,2011United States v. Joseph Carosiello, Paul Ross Prepstein, Michael Harold Rubin. Appeal of Michael Harold Rubin, 439 F.2d 942, 3rd Cir. (1971)Salvador Bandes, Cross-Appellee v. Harlow & Jones, Inc., Harlow & Jones, Inc., Interpleader-Plaintiff v. Salvador Bandes & David Alvarez, Interpleader-Defendants. Salvador Bandes, Interpleader-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, David Alvarez, Interpleader-Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, 852 F.2d 661, 2d Cir. (1988)Lake City Woman Pleads Guilty to Public Intoxication and Disorderly ConductECF 71 RedactedGrajales v. Bell-OR-Judicial Branch v. Taxpayers?Car Collector Chronicles 06-13Os report of agro bio tech - Sooraj