Whether proof of the fact of damage—a significant drop in the value of a plaintiff's oil and gas interests—because of an illegal, anticompetitive agreement, is sufficient to establish an injury-in-fact giving rise to a private cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 15(a), without, as a prerequisite, requiring the antitrust plaintiff to sell its oil and gas interests in an artificially rigged market

QUESTION PRESENTED | The Court of Appeals found there was sufficient evidence that Respondent Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. conspired with Chesapeake Energy to allocate markets and depress the prices paid for oil and gas . interests in northern Michigan in October 2010. There was evidence that Petitioners’ interests had a value of : | at least $1,505.15 per acre in May 2010, and that : Respondent paid on average $3,055.60 per acre in the relevant area at that same time. But, as a result of Respondent’s and Chesapeake’s collusion, Petitioners’ interests lost significant value and were only worth . $35.21 per acre in October 2010. ; , Petitioners~ argued that the unlawful anticom, petitive scheme between Respondent and Chesapeake deprived them of the opportunity to.sell their interests at a fair price in a competitive market. ; | The Court of Appeals held that Petitioners failed to demonstrate an injury-in-fact because they did not try to lease their oil and gas rights in the market with | artificially depressed prices. Question Presented: Whether proof of the fact of damage—a significant ; drop in the value of a plaintiffs oil and gas interests— ; because of an illegal, anticompetitive agreement, is ~ ” sufficient to establish an injury-in-fact giving rise to a ; private cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 15(a), ; without, as a prerequisite, requiring the antitrust plaintiff to, sell its oil and gas interests in an artificially rigged market. . ‘ (i)