Ending what the US Justice Department describes as its
"first . . . challenge to an anticompetitive bidding agreement
for Bureau of Land Management [BLM] mineral rights leases,"
the Department announced on February 15 that it had reached a
settlement with Gunnison Energy Corporation (GEC), SG Interests I
Ltd., and SG Interests VII Ltd. (jointly, SGI) to resolve antitrust
and False Claims Act claims based on an alleged agreement not to
compete in bidding for four natural gas leases sold at auction by
BLM. The federal investigation resulted from a lawsuit filed under
the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act in 2009.
The qui tam complaint alleged that GEC and SGI made false
statements to the government through an allegedly false
certification by SGI that its winning bid was not the product of
collusion with another bidder.
Summary of the Settlement
In a follow-on antitrust complaint, the Department joined the
qui tam relator in alleging that in 2005 and 2006 GEC and
SGI had agreed that only SGI would bid at certain BLM auctions for
natural gas leases and that SGI would then assign an interest in
the acquired leases to GEC. As a result of the agreement, the
United States alleged, it had received less revenue from the sale
of the four leases than it would have had GEC and SGI competed at
The proposed settlement provides that GEC and SGI will pay a
total of $550,000 to the United States as well as $50,000 in
relator's attorney's fees. Neither company admitted
Other Theories of FCA Liability Related to Federal Mineral
The bid-rigging allegations at issue in this case differ
significantly from recent FCA settlements announced by the Justice
Department in the context of mineral rights and federal leases,
which have typically concerned the underreporting of royalties. In
United States ex rel. Wright v. Chevron USA, Inc. et al.,
5:03-CV-264 (E.D. Tex.), the Justice Department has collected more
than $250 million in settlements since 2009 from at least nine oil
companies. These settlements resolve allegations that each of the
companies systematically underreported the value of natural gas
they took from federal and Indian leases.
Implications of the Settlement
The settlement announced on February 15 suggests increased
coordination between the Justice Department's civil fraud and
antitrust enforcement arms, on the one hand, and the Bureau of Land
Management, on the other. It also reflects qui tam
relators' and the government's increasing use of false
certification theories of liability under the False Claims
Act–theories whose permissible scope remains a source of
debate in the lower courts and seems likely to reach the Supreme
Court in the near future.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A recent European Commission (EC) fining decision against UK-based broker ICAP confirms that companies which merely facilitate a cartel will be tarred with the same brush as those which actually engage in the cartel.
On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that a state board with a controlling number of decision-makers who are active market participants in the occupation the board regulates does not enjoy state action immunity from federal antitrust laws.
This case could have important implications for European antitrust law, particularly if the ECJ determines that the EU's antitrust laws must be interpreted as curbing enforcement of private licensing agreements.
In a blog post last Friday, Debbie Feinstein, Director of Competition at the FTC, defended the agency’s use of FTC Act Section 5 to target unfair methods of competition outside the scope of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.