On May 17, 2012, leave was granted by the Supreme Court (per Justices LeBel, Fish and Cromwell) in the Quebec Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAMs) case (Samsung Electronics Co., et al v. Option Consommateurs, et al (Que. C.A., Nov. 16, 2011). This case will be consolidated with the two British Columbia indirect purchaser price-fixing cases scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court in October (Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd., et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al. and Sun-Rype Products Ltd., et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, et al.).
This much watched (now trilogy) of cases may finally lead to a resolution in Canada of the unsettled ability of indirect purchasers to bring price-fixing class action suits (the three cases to be heard are conflicting cases – the two British Columbia appellate decisions having denied indirect purchasers standing while the Quebec Court of Appeal took the opposite position allowing indirect purchasers to proceed in the Quebec DRAMs case).
For the Supreme Court’s leave decision see: applications for leave. See also: parties, counsel, summary, factums.
_____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact: contact
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission will be holding a very interesting upcoming workshop on advertising and privacy disclosure in online and mobile media on May 30, 2012 entitled In Short: Advertising & Privacy Disclosures in a Digital World.
The workshop, which will also be webcast, will include the following topics: Mobile Privacy Disclosures, Mobile Advertising Disclosures, Social Media Disclosures and Cross-Platform Advertising Disclosures.
Speakers are to include representatives from the Federal Trade Commission, Berkeley School of Information, NetChoice, National Consumers League, Clorox, Facebook, Word of Mouth Marketing Association, Procter & Gamble, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), Best Buy and others.
For more information see: In Short: Advertising & Privacy Disclosures in a Digital World
_____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact: contact
In a bit of a setback to the defendants in the ongoing e-books cartel case, the New York District Court for the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a motion by the defendants to have the plaintiffs’ class action dismissed.
In a detailed judgment, justice Denise Cote provides a rather thorough restatement of pleading rules in federal antitrust cases and evidence required to establish a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (the U.S. federal parallel to section 45 of Canada’s Competition Act), which prohibits unreasonable restraints of trade (including horizontal price-fixing agreements, market allocation agreements and in some instances group boycotts).
Some of the interesting aspects of this recent judgment that stood out to me, and there are a number of others, include:
1. Rather strong language that the Court accepted, at least at this preliminary stage, the plaintiffs’ arguments of a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. For example, the Court held that the alleged agreement is “fundamentally horizontal”.
2. An acceptance of the plaintiffs’ argument that the relevant standard should be a per se (not rule of reason) review, holding that the alleged agreement is “at root, a horizontal price restraint”. In Canada, section 45 of the Competition Act makes price-fixing, market allocation and supply/output restriction agreements per se illegal, although it largely remains to be seen what types of cases will be challenged by the Competition Bureau under section 90.1 of the Act (which has parallels to the rule of reason standard in the U.S.).
3. A recap of recent U.S. jurisprudence on hub-and-spoke cartels, including discussions of the Interstate Circuit and Toys “R” Us cases.
4. A restatement of the types of indirect (i.e., circumstantial) evidence sufficient to establish a cartel, including simultaneous price changes. In Canada, like the U.S., a number of different types of indirect or circumstantial evidence (sometimes also referred to as “facilitating factors”) can be relied upon to establish a conspiracy, including evidence of meetings, simultaneous price increases and language or conduct that can only be explained by the existence of an agreement.
5. Distinguishing recent U.S. vertical price maintenance decisions, notably the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Leegin Creative, from horizontal arrangements between competitors.
6. A general review of the necessary elements to establish a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act (many of which being the same or paralleling Canadian requirements).
Given that class actions have now also been commenced in Canada (in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec), it will be interesting to see what arguments, if any, may be made by the defendants in Canada in response to the Canadian plaintiffs’ claims.
For a copy of the Court’s Opinion see:
The Foreign Investment Review Committee of the CBA’s Competition Law Section will be holding a Foreign Investment Review Conference in Toronto on June 1st (an “informative discussion on the law and policy issues involved in navigating transactions through Canada’s foreign investment review regulatory process”).
Guests from Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage will include Jenifer Aitken (Director General, Investment Review and Strategic Planning Branch, Industry Canada) and Missy Marston-Shmelzer (Deputy Director of Investments and Director, Cultural Sector Investment Review, Canadian Heritage).
For more information see:
by Andrei Mincov (originally posted at Mincov Law Blog)
One of the most common misconceptions surrounding the law of trademarks in Canada is how trademarks relate to trade names. This misconception can have very costly consequences.
Trade names are used to identify a business or a company. Trade names are the “who” of the business. Customers do business with a business bearing the trade name.
Trademarks are used to identify products or services. Trademarks are the “what” of the business. Customers buy products and services bearing the trademark.
In very simplistic terms, customers buy trademarks from trade names.
Every business registered with the Registrar of Companies or incorporated (provincially or federally) has a trade name. But neither the reservation of a corporate name nor the formation of a corporation create a right to use the business name of the corporation in that jurisdiction.
How can that be? The government registers my business name and I can’t use it? Yes. Unfortunately, corporate registries don’t really check if the name submitted for the registration violates any prior rights. In other words, just because a provincial corporate registry approved your name for registration does not mean that you don’t violate someone else’s prior right (in a trade name or a trademark) and that you will not be compelled to change it in the future.
Rights in corporate names are treated like rights in unregistered trademarks, which means that they are nonexistent outside the geographical areas where the business is actually making use of and it known for its name.
Even if you register a corporate name that no one else had thought of before, it does not give you the right to stop others from using it, unless you can prove that other person’s use of the name creates confusion.
Just because you came up with a fancy company name that helps you attract customers for whatever products or services you are offering does not mean that your name, or brand, is a trademark. If you are not using your trade name as a trademark, your don’t have trademark protection for your trade name.
Trade name can be registered as a trademark, but only if you use it as such, that is, to identify products or services. This is often referred to as using the trade name as an adjective, as opposed to a noun.
Let’s say, your company is called Awesome Software Inc. and you make software. If you phrase your marketing materials to say that “Awesome Software Inc. offers such great titles as Text, Calculator and Presentations”, you are using “Awesome Software” as a trade name. If you phrase them to say “We offer Awesome Software™ Text, Awesome Software™ Calculator and Awesome Software™ Presentations”, then you are using “Awesome Software” as a trademark.
The classic example is, of course, Microsoft® Windows®. We don’t buy Microsoft, we buy from Microsoft. But because “Microsoft” is a part of the name of the product we buy (and part of the reason why we buy it), it is also protected as a trademark in its own standing.
If you believe that a substantial number of your customers are attracted to your business because of your trade name, you should consider using the trade name as a trademark and getting it registered as a trademark.
In other words, if you consider your trade name a factor that gives you a competitive advantage, you should not rely merely on registration of the company name with the Registrar of companies. You should accord the asset that you care about the protection that it deserves, and the only way to do it is through registering it as a trademark.
The Canadian Institute is hosting an upcoming contest conference entitled “Managing Legal Risks in Running Online Contests” on June 21-22 2012 in Toronto. Their conference will include discussions on topics that include minimizing the risks of operating online contests, online voting contests, operating Facebook and Twitter contests, mobile contests and mitigating risk when online contests go wrong.
For more information about this conference and our promotional contest resources see:
In March, 2009, sweeping amendments to the Competition Act came into force that included, among many other things, the introduction for the first time in Canada of monetary penalties for abuse of dominance (“administrative monetary penalties” or “AMPs”). Under Canada’s amended section 79, the Competition Tribunal may now order AMPs of up to $10 million ($15 million for subsequent orders).
Since that time, one contested abuse case has proceeded to the Competition Tribunal (the Bureau’s ongoing challenge against The Toronto Real Estate Board, in which the Bureau is seeking only remedial remedies not AMPs) and two new versions of the Bureau’s Abuse of Dominance Enforcement Guidelines have been issued for comment (the current draft version of which, while setting out when the Tribunal may order AMPs in abuse cases, provides no guidance as to when the Bureau will seek them).
On May 15, 2012, the C.D. Howe Institute’s Competition Policy Council issued a report, the result of its third meeting on May 7, 2012, calling for the Bureau to clarify its position as to when it will seek AMPs in abuse cases. (Unlike some provisions of the Act, in Canada the Bureau has exclusive jurisdiction to bring and prosecute abuse cases, which are heard before the federal Competition Tribunal.)
In issuing the Report, the C.D. Howe Institute’s Council said:
“The Competition Bureau should clarify how it will apply its powers under the Competition Act in seeking administrative monetary penalties for abuse of dominance, according to a consensus of the C.D. Howe Institute’s Competition Policy Council, which held its third meeting on May 7, 2012. …
There was a range of views among the Council members about whether AMPs for abuse of dominance are ever appropriate. Some members contended that AMPs are appropriate as a deterrence mechanism. Others expressed the view that the possibility of a firm’s being subject to AMPs would chill efficient arrangements. There was unanimity, however, on the point that the risks of over-deterrence associated with AMPs are real, and that it would be appropriate to know how the Bureau plans to approach the issue of AMPs in particular cases. Accordingly, the Council’s key recommendation is that the Competition Bureau issue guidance and explain the basis on which it will assess the AMPs it seeks.”
Some of the issues discussed in the Council’s Report include the constitutionality of AMPs (as yet to be determined) and a more reticent Bureau in terms of its abuse of dominance enforcement positions.
With respect to the latter, the Commissioner of Competition has indicated in recent public remarks that the markedly shorter draft Abuse Guidelines currently subject to public comments is an effort to let the Competition Tribunal, not the Bureau, decide where the boundaries of section 79 lie (which provides little comfort to firms given that there have only been about ten contested abuse cases since the modern Competition Act was introduced in 1986).
For a copy of the C.D. Howe Institute’s news release and Report see:
The following are a few upcoming competition/antitrust law conferences:
American Bar Association Financial Services and Competition (New York: June 7, 2012): Financial Services and Competition.
13th annual Civil Liberties and Competition Policy conference (Washington: June 21, 2012): Civil Liberties and Competition Policy.
Georgetown Law 6th Annual Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium (Washington: September 19, 2012). Canada’s Commissioner of Competition will be speaking at this conference: Antitrust Enforcement Symposium.
39th Fordham Conference (New York – September 20-21, 2012): Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy.
The following are a few competition and regulatory law developments that caught my eye today:
The Saskatchewan Government issued a review report on the proposed Glencore/Viterra transaction calling for, among other things, conditions to ensure compliance with Glencore’s Investment Canada Act commitments and a review of potential competition concerns in the retail (i.e., crop input) markets: Government Releases Review of Glencore Acquisition of Viterra
The OECD issued a new Procedural Fairness and Transparency Report, which includes recent Competition Bureau transparency initiatives: Procedural Fairness and Transparency – Key Points 2012
The International Trade Minister delivered remarks to the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (BC) about the new Canada-EU trade agreement: International Trade Minister Ed Fast Highlights Benefits of Canada-EU Trade Agreement to Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives has commented on competition and infrastructure in Canada to supply Chinese energy needs: Canada: Competing for China’s energy needs
The CRTC’s Executive Director of Broadcasting addressed innovation and competition in local radio and television markets in BC: Speech to the 65th annual conference of the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters
The Competition Bureau issued its April Monthly Merger Review Report: Merger Review Report
On May 11, 2012, the Saskatchewan Government published a review report on the proposed Glencore/Viterra transaction. In issuing the report, Saskatchewan’s Agriculture Minister called for conditions to “hold Glencore” to its Investment Canada Act commitments and also indicated that one competition concern included competitive effects relating to Agrium and the farm inputs (i.e., retail) markets.
Saskatchewan is calling for the following, among other things, as part of Investment Canada Act approval: Regina as Glencore’s North American headquarters, maintaining current levels of employment, a five year increase in capital investment of C $100 million and no adverse competitive effects in the farm input (i.e., retail) markets (competition is one of the relevant net benefit to Canada factors under section 20 of the Investment Canada Act).
For the Saskatchewan Government’s news release and report see:
Review of the Proposed Glencore Acquisition of Viterra and Related Transactions
The OECD has published a new booklet (Procedural Fairness and Transparency – Key Points 2012) that summarizes three roundtable discussions on transparency and procedural fairness in 2010 and 2011, as part of the OECD’s Competition Committee’s Working Party No. 3. The OECD’s booklet summarizes 82 written submissions, eight presentations by various national delegations and commentary from competition law practitioners and experts.
The OECD’s booklet also includes discussions of recent transparency related initiatives by the Canadian Competition Bureau including new compliance, merger and Immunity Program related guidelines; the Bureau’s transparency self-assessment (began in 2010, which has resulted in, among other things, its new monthly Merger Registry and merger statements); areas of improvement with respect to transparency (including in relation to merger review and the review of the Bureau’s consent agreement process); and the Bureau’s policies relating to the exchange of confidential information with international agencies.
For a copy of the OECD booklet see:
The Federal Government has published the Industry Minister’s remarks at the Bloomberg Canada Economic Summit in Toronto on May 8, 2012. Some of the highlights of the Minister’s speech include Federal economic initiatives over the past six years, foreign investment in Canada (according to the Minister, 95 new foreign businesses and expansion projects), trade and tariff elimination initiatives, Telecommunication Act amendments to lift foreign ownership restrictions for small telecom companies and recently tabled proposed amendments to the Investment Canada Act (Bill C-38) aimed at increasing transparency in the Canadian foreign investment review process.
For the Minister’s remarks and related news release see:
The following are a few advertising and regulatory law developments that caught my eye today:
The CRTC has published final regulations to regulate loud television commercials: CRTC moves a step closer to making loud TV ads a thing of the past. Slaw.ca posted an interesting note by David Canton on the use of social media and Facebook for operating online contests: Commercial Users of Social Media Need to Check Terms of Use. The U.S. FTC published tips to protect information and computers from online scammers: Secure Your Computer. The Minister of Public Safety addressed trade, security and competition in remarks at the Can/Am Border Trade Alliance Conference: Speaking Notes for the Honourable Vic Toews Minister of Public Safety at the Can/Am Border Trade Alliance Conference. The Globe published an interesting article on fraudulent advertising and phishing in relation to bank log-in websites: Phishing, other malicious websites soar in Canada.
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) and Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) have issued a joint statement and two reports that recommend a range of policy measures to increase and promote bilateral trade and investment between Canada and Australia.
In making the announcement, the CCCE said:
“In recent years there has been a significant expansion in two-way investment between Australia and Canada, particularly in the natural resources and financial sectors. In view of that, and given Canada’s interest in joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations (TPP), the two business organisations concluded that both countries would benefit from a better understanding of the potential for enhanced trade and investment.”
The proposed changes include eliminating tariffs on bilateral trade, improving labour mobility, a bilateral agreement for reciprocal treatment under Canadian and Australian foreign investment review systems and exploring the development of a bilateral competition policy framework that would replace anti-dumping actions.
For the CCCE’s and Ai’s news releases, joint statement and reports see:
On May 8, 2012, hearings began before the Competition Tribunal (Tribunal) in the Visa/MasterCard price maintenance case. The case, filed by the Competition Bureau in late 2010, is the first civil price maintenance case to be heard by the Tribunal following amendments to the Competition Act in 2009 that included the repeal of former criminal price maintenance offences.
In brief, the Bureau is alleging that Visa and MasterCard merchant agreements discourage consumers from using lower-cost methods of payment (e.g., cash, debit cards, etc.) and prevent retailers from declining certain higher fee cards, which has led to an increase in card service fees paid by retailers and corresponding higher retail prices for goods and services.
Section 76 of the Competition Act now makes it a reviewable civil practice for a supplier to influence a customer or reseller to raise prices (or discourage the reduction of prices), including by agreement, where the conduct has an adverse effect on competition. While formerly a “per se” criminal offence with no competitive effects requirement, price maintenance is now a civil reviewable practice that allows the Tribunal to make remedial orders – for example, for conduct to stop or in some cases for supply to be resumed – where it is shown that competition has been adversely affected. Private parties may now also make price maintenance applications for Tribunal orders (with leave from the Tribunal).
Some of the restraints being challenged by the Bureau in this case include restrictions on merchants promoting or encouraging the use of credit cards with lower fees, discouraging the use (or refusing to accept) cards with higher fees and requirements to accept all Visa/MasterCard credit cards.
The Commissioner is seeking an order prohibiting Visa and MasterCard from enforcing agreements preventing merchants from encouraging the use of lower-cost payment methods, including rules preventing retailers from discouraging the use of higher-cost credit cards or refusing to accept certain Visa/MasterCard cards.
For more information about the hearings, pleadings and parties’ cases see:
On May 4, 2012, Reuters, the Globe and Mail, the Wall Street Journal and others reported that Glencore International PLC received a no action letter from the Competition Bureau that the Bureau will not challenge Glencore’s $6 billion bid for Canada’s largest grain handler Viterra Inc.
No action letters are one of two forms of clearance available to merging parties under the Competition Act (along with advance ruling certificates) and state that the Commissioner does not intend when issued to challenge a transaction under the merger review provisions of the Act, although has the power to challenge a merger for up to one year post-completion).
The quick clearance by the Bureau is not very surprising given that, among other things, Glencore’s offer was not conditional on subsequent transactions involving the sale of Viterra port terminal, grain handling and retail assets to Agrium and Richardson and the absence of competitive overlap between Glencore and Viterra (indeed the transaction appears to be structured to achieve this relatively effortless first-stage clearance).
It will be interesting, however, to see how the Bureau will review and assess the subsequent second stage Glencore sales to Agrium and Richardson, particularly given that there appears there will be some Glencore/Agrium and Glencore/Richardson overlaps in the retail (crop protection products, fertilizer, seed, small equipment, etc.) and port terminal grain handling markets. Having said that, the parties have indicated in public statements that they have chosen to allocate the later sale of assets carefully to tiptoe through potential concentration issues and reduce possible competition concerns.
Carswell has recently published several new regulatory law related books including: Finding and Managing Legal Information on the Internet (2nd ed.) (David Whelan), Computer, Internet and Electronic Commerce Terms (Barry Sookman) and Canadian Customs Law (D. Kiselbach, A. Xilinas, K. Xilinas).
For more information see:
The University of Toronto Law School will be holding an event on May 12th entitled “lawTechcamp”, intended to be an event to integrate legal professionals with new media and technology enthusiasts (CPD credits are also apparently available):
“lawTechCamp is a BarCamp-style community UnConference for new media and technology enthusiasts and legal professionals including bloggers, twitters, legal-technology lawyers, social networkers, and anyone curious about new media and the law. LawTechCampTO will be the first such event held worldwide.
lawTechCamp is not just for lawyers. If you are interested in the intersection of law and technology, such as legal issues facing startups, access to justice issues, or someone just interested in technology or law, then please join us – and bring a friend or colleague.”
On May 4, 2012, the Competition Bureau announced that Maxzone Auto Parts (Canada) Corp. has pleaded guilty for participating in an international price-fixing cartel relating to the sale of aftermarket replacement automobile lights and was fined Cdn. $1.5 million.
In making the announcement the Bureau said:
“Following a Bureau investigation, Maxzone Canada admitted to implementing an agreement with competitors to set the price of aftermarket automotive replacement lights in Canada from January 2004 to September 2008. The products, mainly headlights and tail lights, were primarily purchased by auto parts supply companies in Canada for use as replacement parts.
Today’s charges are the first to arise from this investigation and anyone with information relating to this cartel investigation is encouraged to contact the Bureau.”
This case is part of an ongoing global auto parts cartel investigation. According to the Bureau, it is relying on its Immunity and Leniency Programs as part of its investigation.
Under the Bureau’s Immunity Program, companies or individuals implicated in criminal conduct under the Competition Act may offer to cooperate with the Bureau in its investigation and request immunity (i.e., full immunity from prosecution for criminal offences under the Act).
Under the Bureau’s Leniency Program, parties that have contravened criminal provisions of the Act that are not entitled to full immunity – for example, are not “first in” as immunity is a race – may nevertheless be eligible for leniency in sentencing.
The Canadian Bar Association’s National Section on International Law has issued a call for articles for the next issue of its newsletter. For more information and submission information see:
Earlier today, Reuters Canada and others reported that Maple Group has accepted the Ontario Securities Commission’s (OSC) conditions for its proposed $3.8 billion bid for the TMX Group (the OSC’s conditions are subject to a 30-day comment period – see: proposed recognition orders).
In Maple Group’s news release, it said:
“These draft and final orders are the result of extensive consultation by the OSC and AMF with Maple, TMX Group, CDS, market participants, and other regulators – including the Bank of Canada and the Competition Bureau. If these orders are finalized as published, Maple will accept them.
The OSC’s proposed recognition order for Maple also confirms and clarifies the OSC’s extensive ongoing regulatory oversight of equities trading and clearing and settlement activities, including provisions with respect to equities trading fees. These provisions include prohibitions, obligations and approval requirements that are designed to ensure that the Canadian capital market remains open and competitive for all participants, and that the interests of all participants in Canada’s capital markets are respected. As well, the AMF’s recognition orders confirm and clarify the AMF’s extensive ongoing regulatory oversight of derivatives trading and clearing and settlement activities.
The draft and final orders provide important changes in areas such as: independent governance of Maple (as successor parent to TMX Group) as well as fair, meaningful and diverse representation on the Board of Maple; restrictions designed to ensure competitive equities markets; independent governance of CDS; and access to and fees for CDS clearing and depository services. Maple believes the binding commitments to the structure of the transaction and the regulatory landscape, as reflected in the orders, represent substantial changes to the initial proposal in respect of which the Competition Bureau expressed serious concerns.”
With respect to clearance by the Bureau, Maple said that the Bureau has advised it that the draft OSC orders (if finalized) may “materially change” and mitigate its previous concerns:
“As disclosed on April 27, 2012, Competition Bureau staff have provided an update to Maple and TMX Group regarding the status of the Competition Bureau’s review of the Maple transaction.
Staff advised Maple and TMX Group that, while the Competition Bureau has an independent mandate and will complete its own review, it has provided views and input to the OSC for its consideration relating to the potential impact of the Maple transaction on competition. In that context, Competition Bureau staff advised that it is possible that measures contained in the draft OSC recognition orders, if finalized and enforced, may materially change the regulatory environment such that the Competition Bureau’s previously articulated serious concerns may be substantially mitigated. Staff of the Competition Bureau have emphasized that the Bureau would consider both the published draft orders and any finalized orders, and that a final decision would not be made until it had completed its process.”
In the OSC’s news release, OSC Chair and CEO Howard Wetston said:
“The Commission has thoroughly reviewed the regulatory issues raised by Maple’s proposal and developed measures necessary to ensure that the public interest is protected. … Public consultation has been a fundamental part of our review process and we will carefully consider the further input we receive on these orders when making our final determination.”
The proposed behavioural remedy (or rather remedies) in the transaction would include access for market participants, pricing commitments and regulatory oversight of CDS.
At the Spring CBA Competition Conference earlier today in Toronto, the Commissioner of Competition, Melanie Aitken, delivered an interesting keynote luncheon speech that provided insight into the Competition Bureau’s recent experience under Canada’s amended Competition Act, current enforcement and future priorities.
Mergers
With respect to mergers, the Commissioner addressed recent efforts (including the 2009 Competition Act amendments) to align Canada’s merger control regime with those of other major jurisdictions, notably the U.S.
The Commissioner also addressed the Bureau’s increased monitoring of non-notifiable mergers, cited some recent merger review related statistics (including the fact that the Bureau has reduced the average time to review complex transactions from about 50 days pre-2009 to about 36 days currently and that the Bureau has triggered second phase reviews (“supplementary information requests” or “SIRs”) in 18 cases over the past three years).
The Commissioner also indicated that the ongoing BC waste case (an ongoing non-notifiable contested merger case) was uncommon, but at the same time made it clear that the Bureau would: (i) not hesitate to litigate appropriate merger cases and (ii) was interested in clarifying the law under the merger provisions of the Competition Act.
Perhaps the Commissioner’s most interesting merger related remarks were those relating to the possibility of collapsing the current standalone efficiencies defense into the general merger provisions of the Competition Act. In this regard, the Commissioner appeared to indicate that Canada’s standalone efficiencies defense was out of step with other major jurisdictions.
The Canadian Society of Association Executives (CSAE) will be holding its annual National Conference and Showcase on November 1-3, 2012 in Ottawa.
We are pleased to be co-presenting a seminar on Practical Competition Law and Compliance Case Studies for Trade and Professional Associations, with the co-author (Mark Katz) of our new associations book:
“Although most association activities are benign from a competition law perspective, they can raise serious issues in a variety of circumstances that occur on a regular basis. This presentation will review the key provisions of Canada’s Competition Act relevant to trade and professional associations and offer practical guidance on how to reduce risk based on a series of practical and interactive case studies derived from actual Canadian and international examples.
The focus of the case studies will be on real-life association activities that can attract liability if not conducted in an appropriate fashion. Issues to be covered include: (i) when will a purely voluntary or suggested fee tariff/schedule become problematic; (ii) ways associations can engage in joint negotiations or advocacy initiatives on behalf of members without raising competition issues; (iii) how associations can reduce the risk of engaging in information exchanges (e.g., research or benchmarking exercises); (iv) how to structure association membership restrictions and discipline procedures; and (v) what to do to distinguish pro-competitive standard-setting from conduct that can raise competition concerns.
The Global Competition Review (GCR) has announced the publication of the first edition of its (may I say long needed) Foreign Investment Review (see: Getting the Deal Through – Foreign Investment Review 2012).
From GCR:
“The first edition of Foreign Investment Review, a new volume in our series of annual reports, which provide international analysis in key areas of law and policy for corporate counsel, cross-border legal practitioners and clients.”
This global survey of foreign investment rules includes Canada and the following other jurisdictions: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK, United States and Vietnam.
For more information see:
The National Competition Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association will be hosting a Marketing Practices Committee Roundtable with Competition Bureau officials in Toronto this Thursday.
Bureau representatives are to include Lisa Campbell (Deputy Commissioner of Fair Business Practices) and Brendan Ross (Major Case Director and Strategic Policy Advisor).
For more information see:
OUR BOOKS
The Competition Law Guide for Trade Associations in Canada is a practical and concise summary of Canadian competition law for trade, professional and other associations and their advisors
OUR COURSES
Competition Law and REALTORS®: What You Say and Do Matters was designed by ACRE with the assistance of CREA to help Canadian REALTORS® understand and comply with Canadian competition law
For more see: ACRE