Archive for the 'Competition Bureau' Category
Earlier this month, on March 5, 2012, the CRTC finalized its Regulations under Canada’s pending federal anti-spam legislation (the “Anti-spam Act”).
The last steps before Canada’s Anti-spam Act comes into force are now the finalization of the draft Industry Canada Regulations under the legislation and proclamation into force.
Once in force, the Anti-spam Act will create an opt-in regime for the sending of “commercial electronic messages” or “CEMs” and one of the strictest anti-spam regimes in the world, with maximum penalties of $1 million (for individuals) and $10 million (for corporations).
Some of the changes that were made to the previously draft CRTC Regulations include broadening the way consent to send CEMs may be obtained (orally or writing now, as opposed to only in writing in the draft Regulations) and somewhat broadening the ways in which a recipient may unsubscribe (now an unsubscribe mechanism must be able to be “readily performed” as compared to draft Regulations which specified the number of clicks required to unsubscribe).
On March 20, 2012 the Competition Bureau announced that Canadian Tire Corporation, Pioneer Energy LP and Mr. Gas pleaded guilty in Ontario Superior Court in Brockville, Ontario to fixing the price of gasoline in 2007 at the pump and were fined $2 million.
In making the announcement, the Bureau said:
“’Consumers in Kingston and Brockville were denied a competitive price for gasoline as a result of this criminal price-fixing cartel,’ said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. ‘The Bureau will not hesitate to take action when it uncovers evidence of illegal price-fixing.’
The pleas are as follows: Pioneer Energy LP pleaded guilty to price-fixing in Kingston and Brockville, and was fined $985,000; Canadian Tire Corporation pleaded guilty to price-fixing in Kingston and Brockville, and was fined $900,000; and Mr. Gas pleaded guilty to price-fixing in Brockville and was fined $150,000.
Today’s criminal charges and guilty pleas are the result of an extensive Bureau investigation that found evidence that gas retailers or their representatives in these local markets phoned each other and agreed on the price they would charge customers for gasoline. The Bureau’s investigation into potential price-fixing in the retail gasoline market continues in the Southeastern Ontario market.”
Under section 45 of the Competition Act, three types of agreements between competitors are “per se” illegal (i.e., with no adverse competitive impacts required to be shown):
1. Price-fixing agreements. Agreements to fix, maintain, increase or control the price for the supply of a product.
2. Market allocation/division agreements. Agreements to allocate sales, territories, customers or markets for the production or supply of a product.
3. Output/supply restriction agreements. Agreements to fix, maintain, control, prevent, lessen or eliminate the production or supply of a product (which may include group boycotts).
UBS disclosed earlier today in its 2011 Annual Report that the Competition Bureau has granted it conditional immunity in relation to the ongoing global LIBOR price-fixing investigation:
“The Canadian Competition Bureau has granted UBS conditional immunity in connection with potential competition law violations related to submissions for Yen LIBOR. As a result of these conditional grants, we will not be subject to prosecutions, fines or other sanctions for antitrust or competition law violations in the jurisdictions where we have conditional immunity or leniency in connection with the matters we reported to those authorities, subject to our continuing cooperation. However, the conditional leniency and conditional immunity grants we have received do not bar government agencies from asserting other claims against us. In addition, as a result of the conditional leniency agreement with the DOJ, we are eligible for a limit on liability to actual rather than treble damages were damages to be awarded in any civil antitrust action under US law based on conduct covered by the agreement and for relief from potential joint-and-several liability in connection with such civil antitrust action, subject to our satisfying the DOJ and the court presiding over the civil litigation of our cooperation. The conditional leniency and conditional immunity grants do not otherwise affect the ability of private parties to assert civil claims against us.”
In Canada, the Competition Bureau has established formal Immunity and Leniency programs, under which companies or individuals that may have been involved in cartel (e.g, price-fixing) or other criminal conduct under the Competition Act may, if all conditions are satisfied, receive full immunity from prosecution or reductions in fines for cooperating with a Bureau investigation.
Earlier today, the Wall Street Journal and others reported that the Quebec Securities Commission said that it intends to approve the proposed acquisition of the TMX by the Maple Group (see: Quebec Regulator Gives Nod to Maple/TMX Deal).
The Competition Bureau, however, was reported by the Montreal Gazette and others today to have repeated its concerns about the proposed transaction:
“A spokeswoman for the federal antitrust watchdog said there were no new developments to report regarding its continuing review of the proposed deal.
‘As we said in November, while it is accurate to say the commissioner’s views may be affected by further factual information and developments, a significant and material change to the competitive consequences to the proposed transaction would be required to sufficiently address the commissioner’s serious concerns communicated to the parties in November,’ spokesperson Alexa Keating said.”
The Victoria Real Estate Board will be holding a competition law course for its members – “Competition Law and REALTORS®: What You Say and Do Matters” - on Monday March 19th.
About this course:
“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. While Canadian competition law applies to all real estate professionals, this course was designed specifically for REALTORS®. This course provides an overview in plain language of Canadian competition law and practical compliance guidelines to assist REALTORS® in complying with Canadian competition law and a number of illustrative case studies. This national competition law course is available to members of Canadian real estate boards and associations.”
This course will be instructed by Steve Szentesi.
On increasing speculation about potential bidders for Viterra, the company issued a short press release earlier today. In its release, Viterra said:
“Viterra Inc. … at the request of Market Surveillance on behalf of the Toronto Stock Exchange, acknowledges that, in response to expressions of interest from third parties to acquire the Company, a process has been established by the Board of Directors of Viterra, which includes confidentiality agreements being entered into and the provision of due diligence.
Viterra is aware of press reports speculating about, among other things, the process, parties involved and third parties expressions of interest of at least Cdn$16 per Viterra common share. Viterra cautions investors not to rely on these press reports as there can be no assurance that a transaction will occur and that if one does occur, there can be no assurance at what price it will be completed.
Viterra has engaged financial and legal advisors to provide support with this process.
A further announcement will be made if appropriate.”
Jeff Gray and Tara Perkins at the Globe have written an interesting note on criticism of the Competition Bureau’s recently launched merger registry (see: Competition Bureau’s Mergers List Panned).
For the first transactions disclosed by the Bureau in its new merger registry see: Monthly Report of Concluded Merger Reviews. For more about Canadian merger control see: Merger Control. For the Canadian Bar Association’s comments on the proposed registry last fall see: Proposed Merger Registry.
The International Antitrust Law Committee of the ABA has published their March 2012 “Hot Topics” Newsletter entitled “Updates to the Canadian Merger Review Process” (see: Updates to the Canadian Merger Review Process).
Abstract:
“On January 11, 2012, the Canadian Competition Bureau published a revision of its Merger Review Process Guidelines. The revised Guidelines set out the Bureau’s approach to the merger review process under the Competition Act, which was most recently articulated in 2009 following the significant changes to the merger notification provisions which conform more closely to the ‘second request’ system employed in the United States.
The revised Guidelines represent refinements rather than wholesale changes to the process articulated in 2009, and are principally concerned with the procedures to be followed when responding to a Supplementary Information Request (‘SIR’)”
On March 6, 2012, a Scheduling Order was issued in Commissioner of Competition v. Air Canada/United, one of two current contested merger cases before the Competition Tribunal.
Hearings are scheduled to begin November 13, 2012.
A few days ago, we posted a short note on the Competition Bureau’s announcement that five companies and three individuals were found by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to have violated the Competition Act in relation to a deceptive marketing operation (see: Advertising Update: $9 Million Penalty and Restitution Obtained in Deceptive Marketing Scheme).
We thought we would post a few more observations about this rather significant case following the issuance of the decision by the Ontario Superior Court.
Facts
The Competition Bureau sought orders for restitution and administrative monetary penalties or “AMPs” (essentially civil fines) in relation to alleged deceptive marketing by a group of related companies that included Yellow Page Marketing B.V., Yellow Publishing Ltd., Yellow Data Services Ltd., Yellow Business Marketing Ltd. and several individual defendants (none related to the Yellow Pages Group (“YPG”), well known and reputable in Canada).
The Bureau alleged that this group of companies misled thousands of Canadian businesses, individuals and organizations to pay more than $2,000 each for “agreed upon” services on the assumption that the target companies were merely updating existing records to obtain free Google advertising. In fact, fine print disclaimers disclosed that the targets were actually signing new two-year contracts.
While unrelated to the YPG, the defendants registered 13 Internet domains for websites that included highly similar trade-marks, colours and designs used by the YPG. The defendants also sent faxes to businesses, individuals and organizations that, according to the Court, were “designed to mislead existing or potential YPG customers” into paying $2,856 to them and which included designs that highly resembled the YPG “Walking Fingers” logo.
Companies responding to the faxes received invoices, which, if not paid, were followed by more invoices, reminder notices or letters.
Law
The Court considered the facts of this case under section 74.01 of the Competition Act (the general civil misleading advertising section of the Act).
Generally speaking, the misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act prohibit false or misleading statements to the public that are made to promote products (including services) or business interests and that are materially false or misleading (i.e., likely to cause an ordinary or average consumer into purchasing a product or otherwise altering their conduct).
The Court reviewed the relevant law under the general misleading advertising provisions of the Act, including the test for materiality, the “general impression test” (the general impression of a claim is relevant under both the criminal and civil misleading advertising provisions in addition to its literal meaning), the fact that the general misleading advertising provisions apply to claims relating to both products or “any business interest” and the law relating to fine print disclaimers.
With respect to materiality, the Court held:
“The false or misleading representations made by the respondents were material. They were intended to deceive and did, in fact, deceive many Canadian businesses and individuals into believing that they were dealing with YPG, when they signed and returned the Unsolicited Faxes and sent payment to the respondents. Materiality of the false or misleading representations is further evidenced by the fact that a majority of complainants stated that they would never have ordered the service by returning the Unsolicited Faxes had they known that the respondents were unaffiliated with YPG and/or would never have paid the respondents invoices or reminder notices had they not believed that they had been sent by YPG.”
With respect to the fine print disclaimers, the Court held:
“The fact that the fine print of the Unsolicited Faxes stated that returning them would bind the recipient to a two year contract does not reduce its false or misleading nature. The fine print did not clarify that the Unsolicited Faxes had not been sent by YPG and the disclosure was insufficiently prominent.”
With respect to the meaning of “business interest” in section 74.01, the Court construed this phrase broadly holding:
“Similar misrepresentations appear in the respondents’ domain names, invoices, reminder notices and letters sent by the respondents. Although the respondents argue that collection efforts after the contract had been completed were not to increase sales, the relevant provision of the Competition Act refers to promoting “any business interest” and not just sales. The phrase ‘business interest’ must be given a wide meaning and collecting money, and threats made in relation to collection efforts, constitute promotion of the respondents’ business interests.”
The Court also found the defendants’ domain names, invoices, reminder notices and letters to be misleading and rejected the defendants’ argument that a due diligence was available.
Under the penalty provisions of the civil misleading advertising sections, a limited defense is available to the corrective notice, administrative monetary penalty and restitution provisions where a person establishes that they exercised due diligence to prevent the reviewable conduct from occurring.
On March 8, 2012, the Competition Bureau announced that another individual pleaded guilty under section 45 of the Competition Act to fixing the price of gasoline in the ongoing Quebec gasoline price-fixing cartel (see: Individual Fined in Gasoline Price-fixing Cartel).
This investigation is the largest criminal investigation in the Bureau’s history and has been active for about two years.
In making the announcement, the Bureau said:
“The accused, Robert Murphy (now retired), was a territorial manager employed by Sonic. He was sentenced today to pay a fine of $7,500.
Charges were laid in June 2008 and July 2010 against 38 individuals and 14 companies accused of fixing the price of gas at pumps in Victoriaville, Thetford Mines, Magog and Sherbrooke, Quebec. As of today, 22 individuals and six companies have pleaded guilty in this case, with fines totalling over $2.8 million. Of the 22 individuals who have pleaded guilty, six have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling 54 months.”
The Competition Bureau announced earlier today that Alison Tait has been appointed the new Deputy Commissioner, Civil Matters Branch.
In making the announcement, the Bureau said:
“Ms. Tait has extensive experience in industrial policy, program development, and international business development, both in Canada and the United States, and is currently Director General of the Automotive and Transportation Industries Branch at Industry Canada. She has developed and implemented a number of initiatives aimed at ensuring the long-term competitiveness of the automotive sector in Canada.
She has previously served as Industry Canada’s Director responsible for Tourism, the 2010 Olympics, and Trade & Investment. Ms. Tait has also worked at the Canadian Consulate General in Boston as an Investment Counsellor, where she was responsible for attracting foreign direct investment and venture capital to Canada.”
The Competition Bureau is organized into a number of civil and criminal related “branches” consisting of: Civil Matters, Compliance and Operations, Criminal Matters, Economic Policy and Enforcement, Fair Business Practices, Legal Support, Legislative and International Affairs, Mergers and Public Affairs.
The Civil Matters Branch is responsible for administering and enforcing the civil provisions of the federal Competition Act, which include abuse of dominance (sections 78 and 79), refusal to deal (section 75), exclusive dealing / tied selling / market restriction (section 77) and price maintenance (section 76).
On March 2, 2012, a new tentative hearing date of October 17, 2012 was set in the Pro-Sys and Sun-Rype indirect purchaser price-fixing class action cases before the Supreme Court of Canada (see: Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. (docket) and Sun-Rype Products Ltd. (docket)).
In Pro-Sys, a majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal set aside an earlier Supreme Court of British Columbia decision granting certification and dismissed the action on the basis that the representative plaintiffs, as indirect purchasers, had no cause of action maintainable in law.
In Sun-Rype, the British Columbia Court of Appeal similarly set aside an earlier Supreme Court of British Columbia decision granting certification for indirect purchaser plaintiffs, holding that they had no cause of action and remitted the application to the trial court for consideration with respect to the direct purchaser plaintiffs.
The Globe and Mail posted a short interview with the Commissioner of Competition earlier today by Steve Ladurantaye.
Among the topics discussed by the Commissioner included misleading advertising, the perception that the Competition Bureau only pursues high profile deterrent setting cases, the Bureau’s approach to case selection and its approach to remedies.
March is Fraud Prevention Month. On March 5, 2012, the Competition Bureau issued the following tips for consumers to protect themselves against fraud:
Be vigilant when evaluating ads, whether for a job, a product or service offered online, over the phone or in print.
Before sending money or giving credit card or account details, be sure you understand what you are agreeing to. Do not feel pressured into paying for a product or service because of threats that your credit rating will be damaged.
Know who you are dealing with. Be wary of any unsolicited phone calls, emails, text messages or letters from unknown sources.
Search for the company, the individuals, the product or the offer on the Internet, and verify any contact and company details.
A few days ago we posted a short note describing the Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. (Canada) Branch (“RBS”) obtaining a stay in Ontario Superior Court to produce documents under section 11 orders obtained by the federal Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) (see: RBS Wins Stay in LIBOR-TIBOR Price-fixing Case).
The Competition Bureau announced earlier today that five companies and three individuals were found by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to have violated the Competition Act in relation to a deceptive marketing operation (see: Competition Bureau Secures Over $9 Million and Money Back to Victims for Business Scam).
As our new competition law handbook for associations is now out, The Competition Law Guide for Trade Associations in Canada, we thought we would post a few of the more interesting competition/antitrust association cases from 1905 to 2012.
Our small tiptoe through the history of associations and competition law will include cases involving ambulance operators, banks, building contractors, business forms suppliers, coal dealers, corrugated box manufacturers, corrugated metal pipe manufacturers, electrical contractors, fruit growers, gypsum dealers and manufacturers, insurance salespersons, lawyers, mandarin orange importers, notaries, pharmacists, paper mills, plumbing contractors and suppliers, real estate agents, softwood lumber dealers, surveyors and wholesale grocers, among others.
We’ll wrap up with the ongoing TREB case, the CREA case (settled in the fall of 2010) and a few of the more interesting recent international association cases over the past decade. The following are a couple more golden oldies from the “trusts” era:
____________________
The King v. Clarke (1907)
In The King v. Clarke, the president of the Alberta Retail Lumber Dealers’ Association was accused of conspiracy under section 498 of the Criminal Code. This case involved an agreement among the members of the association to fix the price of lumber in various parts of Alberta, including penalties for non-compliance and pressure on lumber manufacturers to refuse to supply to non-members. The association’s by-laws expressly provided for association price lists, the regulation of price in different geographic regions and penalties for non-compliance by members. The accused was convicted at trial, which was affirmed on appeal.
R. v. McMichael (1907)
In R. v. McMichael, the manager of the Dominion Radiator Company was accused of conspiracy under section 520 of the Criminal Code. This case involved agreements between the Master Plumbers Association and the Central Supply Association, including the Dominion Radiator Company, whereby plumber members would buy all of their goods from suppliers that agreed to only supply to the general public and non-member plumbers at higher prices. The accused was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine and serve three months in prison.
The Competition Bureau announced earlier today that it was kicking off Fraud Prevention Month with a series of panel discussions on fraud prevention across Canada that will assemble experts from law enforcement agencies, academics and business and consumer groups.
In making the announcement, the Bureau said:
“The Competition Bureau is organizing a series of panel discussions on fraud prevention across Canada that will bring together experts from law enforcement agencies, academia, as well as businesses and consumer groups. The focus of these discussions will be on practical strategies for fighting fraud and raising awareness so that Canadians can protect themselves in the marketplace, particularly in the online and mobile environments. These events will take place at the University of Ottawa on March 6, at the University of Alberta in Edmonton on March 8, and at Concordia University in Montreal on March 13.
Fraud is a crime that affects individuals, businesses and the economy as a whole. ‘It’s a matter of confidence,’ said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. ‘Consumers need to know enough to make informed purchasing choices, based on advertising that is truthful and complete.’
The Competition Bureau, along with the Fraud Prevention Forum, plays an important role in helping Canadians get the information they need to be informed and confident consumers. Consumers also have a role to play in stopping fraud by arming themselves with the facts and reporting fraud when they encounter it.
The Fraud Prevention Forum, chaired by the Competition Bureau, is comprised of more than 125 private sector firms, consumer and volunteer groups, government agencies, and law enforcement organizations that have come together to help combat fraud and raise awareness. During Fraud Prevention Month, Forum members will participate in a number of targeted activities across the country, designed to raise awareness among consumers and businesses about the dangers of fraud.”
Recent fraud related cases that the Bureau has been involved in include bid-rigging (see: here and here), price-fixing (see: here, here, here, here, here and here), market division (see: here), deceptive telemarketing (see: here and here) and deceptive marketing cases (see: here and here).
The Competition Bureau has published its February edition of CB In Brief (see: CB In Brief – February 2012).
This edition includes announcements relating to the Chicoutimi Hospital bid-rigging case, 2012 increase of the size of transaction merger threshold and the Bureau’s new monthly reports of concluded merger reviews.
On February 27, 2012, the Commissioner of Competition brought a motion for the production of nine years of MLS data from The Toronto Real Estate Board in this ongoing abuse of dominance case. According to the Commissioner’s motion, the Bureau has unsuccessfully requested this presumably vast volume of MLS data from TREB and now seeks to compel TREB to produce the data, which is, according to the Bureau, “at the very heart of [the] proceeding”.
In particular, the Bureau asserts that TREB’s MLS data is relevant to its assessment of geographic market, market shares of individual brokerages and agents, the ability of real estate brokers that wish to use “virtual office websites” or “VOWs” effectively against incumbent real estate brokers and issues relating to commissions.
The Bureau’s theory in this case is essentially that TREB has abused its dominant position in the residential real estate services market in the Greater Toronto Area through membership rules that restrict its members’ ability to operate “virtual office websites” or “VOWs”.
Real estate board MLS systems in Canada, which are operated by local real estate boards, typically include a range of information relating to both property listings (e.g., price, dimensions and other relevant property characteristics, such as number of rooms, bedrooms, zoning, etc.) and “sold” information once a property is sold (e.g., sale price, number of days a property was on the market, agents involved in the sale, etc.).
While TREB has asserted privacy law concerns regarding the disclosure of its MLS data, the Bureau asserts privacy law exceptions in its pleading. The Bureau also pleads the Tribunal’s discovery rules for the right to obtain production of documents (see: notice of motion, Competition Tribunal Rules).
Hearing dates have been scheduled in this case for September, 2012 (see: Revised Scheduling Order).
We are pleased to announce that we will be facilitating a compliance course at the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver on February 29, 2012 entitled “Competition Law and REALTORS®: What You Say and Do Matters”.
About this course:
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. While Canadian competition law applies to all real estate professionals, this course was designed specifically for REALTORS®. This course provides an overview in plain language of Canadian competition law and practical compliance guidelines to assist REALTORS® in complying with Canadian competition law and a number of illustrative case studies. This national competition law course is available to members of Canadian real estate boards and associations. Read the rest of this entry »
To celebrate our new competition law handbook for associations – The Competition Law Guide for Trade Associations in Canada – we thought we would post a few of the more interesting competition/antitrust association cases from 1905 to 2012.
Our small tiptoe through the history of associations and competition law will include cases involving ambulance operators, banks, building contractors, business forms suppliers, coal dealers, corrugated box manufacturers, corrugated metal pipe manufacturers, electrical contractors, fruit growers, gypsum dealers and manufacturers, insurance salespersons, lawyers, mandarin orange importers, notaries, pharmacists, paper mills, plumbing contractors and suppliers, real estate agents, softwood lumber dealers, surveyors and wholesale grocers, among others.
We’ll wrap up with the ongoing TREB case, the CREA case (settled in the fall of 2010) and a few of the more interesting recent international association cases over the past 10 years or so. To kick things off, the following are a couple of good old ones from the silent film era.
____________________
The King v. Elliott (1905)
In The King v. Elliott, the president of an Ontario coal association was accused of conspiracy under section 520 of the Criminal Code. This case involved association rules that sought to restrict the sale of coal from operators and shippers directly to consumers or non-members. Members of the association were also given rights to certain areas, with the association dictating coal prices and issuing a “look out list” for suppliers of non-members that were not entitled to buy coal directly from suppliers. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in the first successful combines prosecution in Canada, confirmed the lower court’s judgment convicting the accused.
Wampole & Co. v. F.E. Karn Co. Ltd. (1906)
In Wampole & Co. v. F.E. Karn Co. Ltd., plaintiff manufacturing chemists sought damages and an injunction restraining defendant druggists from alleged breaches of a contract, which fixed the wholesale and retail prices of drugs. The defendants argued that the agreements constituted an unlawful conspiracy. The Court agreed, finding that the agreements, which were in the form adopted by two associations (the Association of Retail Merchants and Association of Wholesale Merchants) “entirely destroyed” competition and contravened the Criminal Code.
On January 6, 2012, the Competition Bureau announced its first conspiracy (i.e., cartel) case under Canada’s amended Competition Act, partially brought under the amended section 45 of the Act.
In this case, two companies pleaded guilty of fixing the price of polyurethane foam and were fined a total of C $12.5 million (see: Cartels Update: Bureau Announces $12.5 Million Fine in First Price-fixing Case Under Amended Competition Act and Competition Bureau Sends Signal to Price-Fixers with $12.5 Million Fine).
In making the announcement, believed to be one of a number of ongoing cartel cases currently being investigated, the Bureau described its stepped-up enforcement of cartels as “reinvigorated”:
“’Yesterday’s guilty plea is the first conviction under Canada’s amended conspiracy law,’ said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. ‘This investigation highlights the Bureau’s reinvigorated mandate to stop consumer harm caused by price-fixing, and to secure significant fines for these serious criminal offences.’
In other recent remarks, the Bureau has similarly indicated that it intends to enhance its investigation of cartels under Canada’s new conspiracy (cartel) rules:
“In our Criminal work, we continue to concentrate on the, admittedly, lengthy process of ‘changing the game’— reorienting our approach at the Bureau, our processes, and our mindset to a more appropriately aggressive stance to respond, as we must, to our new more powerful criminal provisions.
As we move forward with our new criminal regime, consistency, consistency, and consistency is our focus. There will be no arbitrary relaxing of standards under the Bureau’s watch — a practice that can only impair predictability and fairness in enforcement. Further, we will use our investigative tools such as searches, wiretaps and section 11 orders.
Cartels and bid–rigging continue to be our focus, given the seriousness of this conduct, and its unambiguously harmful nature. We are committed to advancing cases that matter to Canadians, doing so in a timely manner, and following them through to the end.”
(See: Commissioner of Competition, Keynote Speech at the Canadian Bar Association 2011 Fall Conference).
Based on these and other recent developments, we have posted a series of posts on Canadian conspiracy law (for Parts 1, 2 and 3 see: here, here and here). This is the final post – practical steps for companies to take to reduce cartel risk.
____________________
PRACTICAL STEPS FOR COMPANIES TO TAKE TO REDUCE CARTEL RISK
Compliance programs. Adopt an effective compliance program or update the competition law section of an existing compliance program. Some of the benefits of a compliance program include reducing the risk of violating the Competition Act, reducing the costs of investigations and proceedings and potentially mitigating penalties. Options range from formal and extensive compliance programs encompassing all company activities to compliance guidelines for key activities (e.g., meetings, information exchanges and specific initiatives, such as benchmarking, research and development initiatives, joint ventures and strategic alliances with competitors, etc.). For more information on competition law compliance programs see: Compliance Programs and the Competition Bureau’s Corporate Compliance Programs Bulletin.
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
The American Bar Association (the Private Advertising Litigation, Consumer Protection and Privacy & Information Security Committees) is holding a teleseminar on February 29, 2012 entitled: “Hot Legal Issues in Social Media Marketing”.
From the ABA:
“Do you want to run a multinational promotion for tweens on Facebook to post videos of their experiences using your product? How about giving rewards to the “mayor” of your store locations on 4-Square? (Or maybe you are asking “What is that?”) Join an expert panel for a fast and furious hour and a half discussing current issues with marketing via social media and resources for your use in counseling through this minefield. The discussion will include new technologies (like 4-Square), marketing to kids, how CAN-SPAM and/or COPPA touch social media, the impact of FTC endorsement/testimonial guidelines, sweepstakes/contest laws, and more!”
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