Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY—Cal. Sup. Ct.: False advertising claim against insurer under California Unfair Competition Law not barred by state insurance law
    • ADVERTISING—9th Cir.: First Amendment did not shield Electronic Arts from publicity rights claims for unauthorized use of player likenesses in NCAA Football video games
    • ADVERTISING—9th Cir.: Former NFL player’s Lanham Act claim for unauthorized use of likeness in Madden NFL video games barred by First Amendment
    • ADVERTISING—E.D. Mich.: Settlement approved in false advertising suit against Son over television claims
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Complaint alleges conspiracy among U.S. providers of pressure pumping services for fracking
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Jury finds American Quarter Horse Association violated antitrust laws by refusing to accept cloned horses
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: FTC goes after debt collection operation over questionable tactics
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: Marketers agree to refrain from selling debt relief services, telemarketing under FTC settlement
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION—M.D. Fla.: FTC contempt action against telemarketers unsealed
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—N.D. Cal.: Gasoline station franchisor’s termination of Right of First Refusal it provided to franchisee was “appropriate”
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—W.D. Wis.: Real estate office franchisee’s tort counterclaims barred by New Jersey’s economic loss doctrine
    • PRIVACY—4th Cir.: Election consultants’ robocalls on election night violated Telephone Consumer Protection Act
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Complaint alleges conspiracy among U.S. providers of pressure pumping services for fracking, (Aug 1, 2013)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Hilliard, Munoz, Gonzalez, LLP
    Organizations Mentioned:Baker Hughes | Baker Hughes, Inc. | Cherry Canyon Resources, L.P. | Halliburton | Halliburton Co. | Hilliard & Shadowen, LLC | Schlumberger, N.V.

    By Jeffrey May, J.D.

    A complaint was filed yesterday in the federal district court in Corpus Christi, Texas, against Halliburton Company, Baker Hughes, Inc., and Schlumberger, N.V. for conspiring to restrain trade in the U.S. market for fracking pressure pumping services ...

    By Jeffrey May, J.D.

    A complaint was filed yesterday in the federal district court in Corpus Christi, Texas, against Halliburton Company, Baker Hughes, Inc., and Schlumberger, N.V. for conspiring to restrain trade in the U.S. market for fracking pressure pumping services (Cherry Canyon Resources, L.P. v. Halliburton Co., filed July 31, 2013).

    Cherry Canyon Resources, L.P. brought the action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of fracking pressure pumping services in the United States from at least May 29, 2011, through the present. Fracking pressure pumping is the process of injecting water and other materials into a well to break apart rock formations and unleash oil and gas, according to the complaint.

    The complaint follows Department of Justice confirmation on July 25, that the Antitrust Division “is investigating the possibility of anticompetitive practices involving pressure-pumping services performed on oil and gas wells.” The plaintiff alleges that Baker Hughes and Halliburton have disclosed that they have received civil investigative demands from the Antitrust Division.

    Halliburton, Baker Hughes, and Schlumberger are the three largest providers of pressure pumping services for fracking in the United States, according to the plaintiff. These firms allegedly colluded to restrict and manipulate supply in order to increase prices and market share. They allegedly fixed the price and output of fracking pressure pumping services sold directly to putative class, according to the plaintiff.

    The plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief for violations of federal antitrust law.

    This is Case 2:13-cv-00238.

    Attorneys: Robert C. Hilliard (Hilliard, Munoz, Gonzalez, LLP) and Steve D. Shadowen (Hilliard & Shadowen, LLC) for Cherry Canyon Resources, L.P.

    Companies: Cherry Canyon Resources, L.P.; Halliburton Co.; Baker Hughes, Inc.; Schlumberger, N.V.

    News: Antitrust

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use