Whether American oil companies can enter into price-fixing agreements with Russian and Saudi Arabian oil companies without Congressional sanction in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act

This is a private antitrust suit brought under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 26) for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2), and for violation of the Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 18). The questions presented are: Whether, contrary to this Court’s seminal decision in United States v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150 (1940), the Court below erred in ignoring the Socony case and affirming the District Court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal notwithstanding the “plausibility” of the allegations that the Respondent American oil companies, without Congressional sanction, accepted the invitation by the Russian and Saudi Arabian oil companies in April 2020 to reduce production and increase the price of oil as a “quid pro quo” condition to stop the price war between the oil companies of Russia and Saudi Arabia in per se violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Whether, contrary to this Court’s seminal decisions in Socony, supra, and Interstate Circuit Inc v. United States , 306 U.S. 208 (1939), the Court below erred by affirming the District Court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and Petitioners’ motion to set aside the dismissal of Petitioners’ suit charging that the Respondent American oil companies, without Congressional sanction, accepted the invitation of the oil companies of Saudi Arabia and Russia to ii participate in a plan to reduce production and increase prices of oil and gasoline in the United States in a per se price-fixing violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Whether Respondent oil companies’ acceptance of the invitation from the oil companies of Russia and Saudi Arabia to reduce production and raise the price of oil and gasoline as a “quid pro quo” deal to stop the price war was immunized by the Act of State Doctrine, even though the Petitioners insisted that the laws of Russia and Saudia Arabia were irrelevant. Whether the Respondent oil companies’ agreement with the oil companies of Russia and Saudi Arabia to reduce production and increase the price of oil and gasoline are immunized on the ground that their agreement was a non-justiciable political question because of the involvement of the President to act as “facilitator” with this “friends” Vladimir Putin of Russia and Prince MBS of Saudia Arabia, even though the agreement was strictly commercial, without Congressional sanction, and contrary to this Court’s decision in Socony, supra, that the judiciary was competent to rule and enforce the Sherman Act. Whether the Court below erred by affirming the decision by the District Court not to allow the Petitioners to amend their Complaint to include newly discovered evidence of admissions made by the President’s son-in-law and principal advisor Jared Kushner that he was instructed to “call the Saudis and Russians and make a deal to raise the price of oil;” and later wrote in his memoirs that he “led the iii negotiations on the historic OPEC + oil agreement in April 2020 among the United States (sic)1, Saudi Arabia and Russia, which led to the largest oil production reductions in history.” Whether the decision by the Court of Appeals finding certain Respondents beyond the reach of personal jurisdiction is contrary to Section 12 of the Clayton Act allowing jurisdiction over Respondents who were found or did business in the United States or had an effect on the commerce of the United States. See Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide Corp. , 370 U.S. 690 (1962). Whether the American oil companies, without Congressional approval, can enter into price-fixing agreements which have the effect of raising prices in the United States. 1 The reference must be to the American oil companies because the United States does not have an oil company.