COMPLAINT PlaintfT Detroit Intemational Bridge Company (°DIBC” or “Plainiif™), by its sfendants Mi undersigned altomseys, for ils Complaint against gan Department of ‘Transportation (°MDOT") and Michigan State Transpertation Commission (Transportation Commission") (colletively “Defendants”), alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. As alleged more fully below, Plain? Detroit Intemational Bridge Company (*DIBC’) and Defendant Michigan Department of Transportation (*MDOT") formed a partersip lo develop certain infasricture t enhance and improve the Intemational border crossing operited by DIBC. ‘The parinership entered by DIBC and MDOT was intended to benefit the Unit Sates of America, the State of Michigen, MDOT and DIBC. MDOT has violated its obligations as a partner of DIBC, has attempt to compete with and usurp part o all ofthe business of DIBC, tas thvarted the express wil of Congress, and has caused and will continue to cause inuparable arm to DIBC that can otly be coreced by this Court issuing injunctive clit protecting DIBC from the continuing wrongs perpetrated by MDOT. 2. The Ambassador Bridge has facilitated U.S Canada trade and travel fr nearly 89 years. Although the Arbassador Bridge has been privately owned and operated throughout its history by DIBC ie itl role a8 4 major North Ameria tae rote: mans that the bridge operas us & limited federal instrumentality for purposes of inlerational commerce and fuvilitatng trafic over the Ambassador Bridge. 3. In the mid-1990s, DIBC and Defendart MDOT formed 9 partnership (the “Ambassador Partnership") intended to improve the efiisney ofthe Ambassador Bridge trade corridor. From the beginning, the Ambassador Pavinership fad two primary goals: (1)inyprovement of the Ambassador Bridge border crossing by creating a direct connection between the Ambassador Bridge andthe US. Intestate system, snd (2) improvement of dhe Ambassador Bridge border crossing by alding « new span to the Ambassador Bridge (the “Second Span"). ‘The plan to accomplish these goals is commonly known as the Ambassador Bridge/Gateway Project. 4. Buch partner took the lead in accomplishing one of the Ambassador Partnership's primary goals 5. MDOT, as the sate agency responsible for Michigan’s roadways, was in charge of socking and alministering federal funding and building the new connections from the Ambassador Bridge plaza to 1-75, 196, and 1-94, 6, IBC, ss owner and operator ofthe Ambassador Bridye, was in charge of funding, sand building (and th afer operating) the Second Span 7. Togethor, the members ofthe Ambassador Partnership were lo coordinate these two aspects of the Ambassador Bridge/Gateway Project, io ensure that the completed project \would provide efficient interstate access to an from the Second Span, 8. Im furtherance of the Ambassador Partneship and tho Ambassador BridgeiGateway Project, DIBC invested hundreds of millions ofits private dollars i upgrading its facilities to accommodute the new interstate connections ano prepare fr construction ofthe Second Span 9. On the other hand, MDOT has violated its Ambassador Partnership duties by another competing border crossing opportunity that would destroy the value of the Ambassor Bridge: Cateway Projet (othe detriment of both the Partnership and DIBC.10. In 2008, MDOT announced its decision to move forward with an entirely new, competing border crossing between Detroit and Windsor known as the Detroit River International Crossing or DRIC Bridge. HT. The DRIC Bridge proposal is supported by the four partners of the DRIC partnership: MDOT, Department of Transportation of the United States ("USDOT"), Transport Canada, and the Ontario Ministry of Transport (*MTO") (*DRIC Partnership”), These four are collectively refered to herein asthe “DRIC Proponents” 12. MDOT and the other DRIC Proponents propose to build the DRIC Bridge less than to miles from the Ambessador Bridge in order to steal up to 75% of the truck traffic revenue curently collested by the Ambassador Bridge and a similarly large portion of the passenger car traffic revenue. This intentional diversion of DIBC"s primary revenue stream threatens the anomie vibily of the Ambassador Bridge, impairs DIBC's ability to satisty its obligations as a limited federal instrumentality, and undenines DIBC's ability t© obtain financing or the Second Span, 13. MDOT's setive participation in and support of the DRIC Partnership and the DRIC Bridge proposal resulted in MDOT abandoning the Ambassador Partnership to improperly usurp and take a partnership advantage ftom the Ambassader Bridge for the sole benesit of MDOT and the DRIC Partnership, 4, MDOT’s active posticipation in and support of the DRIC Partnership and the DRIC Bridge proposal, and the intended diversion of trae revenue from the Ambassador Partnership and DIBC, violates MDOT"s duties to the Ambassaior Partnership and DIBC.