Archive for the 'Events' Category
News and upcoming events from our friends at the Canadian Council on International Law (CCIL) in Ottawa:
“Mini-Conference”. Montreal, March 8, 2012. In celebration of, and cooperation with, the Canadian round of the Jessup, the CCIL is holding a mini-conference in Montreal, integrated with the Jessup competition. This conference is free to CCIL members, and those who become CCIL members between now and then. (If you attended the November conference, you are a member. If not, please follow the link below to find out more about becoming a member.) The conference will address themes drawn from this year’s Jessup problem and from both the CCIL 2011 conference (culture and international law) and the 2012 conference (international law and crises and emergencies). For more see: CCIL – Mini-conference
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 – Teleconference
The National Competition Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association will be holding a teleconference on February 29, 2012 entitled: “Criminal Conspiracy or Legitimate Competitor Collaboration? Tips for In-House Counsel”
The Competition Bureau announced last Friday in a news release that another seven individuals have pleaded guilty to criminal conspiracy charges in relation to the Bureau’s ongoing gasoline price-fixing investigation in Quebec.
In a story reported earlier today in the Toronto Star, the Star reported an announcement by Interactive Advertising Bureau of Canada (“IAB”) Vice-President Sam Parent that online marketers will soon introduce self-regulation for behavioral advertising (see: Advertisers to Police Themselves When Targeting Online Users).
FEBRUARY 1-3, 2012 – Vancouver
The Antitrust Law Section of the American Bar Association and the International Bar Association (IBA) will be holding their bi-annual International Cartel Workshop in Vancouver from February 1-3, 2012 at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver.
From the American Bar Association:
“The International Cartel Workshop, recognized globally as the premier international cartel program offered anywhere, is presented only once every two years. The next Workshop, which will have many new features, will be held in Vancouver, Canada during February 1-3, 2012. The 2012 program will continue the Workshop’s tradition of instruction by demonstration, with experienced faculty from around the globe taking you inside a hypothetical international cartel matter — from detection by government enforcers to the disposition of government prosecutions and private damage claims. The Workshop will also highlight new developments in the law and leniency practices around the world, with leading enforcers and experienced private practitioners demonstrating how critical decisions are made on both sides of the table and providing examples of important interactions between counsel and enforcers. The 2012 Workshop’s international faculty includes many of the most accomplished cartel attorneys in the world, as well as the most senior cartel enforcement officials from a variety of jurisdictions.”
For more information about the joint ABA/IBA Cartel Workshop see:
American Bar Association – Antitrust International Cartel Workshop
MARCH 28-30 2012 – Washington
The Section of Antitrust Law of the American Bar Association will be holding its 60th Antitrust Spring Meeting in Washington from March 28th to 30th 2012.
From the ABA:
“Please plan to be in Washington, DC this year for the 60th ABA Section of Antitrust Law Spring Meeting. Spring Meeting is the Antitrust Bar’s premiere conference, offering the most comprehensive review of developments in antitrust and consumer protection law, training, and networking opportunities available anywhere. In this time of belt-tightening, the Spring Meeting is the one conference that you cannot afford to miss.
The Spring Meeting programming covers cutting-edge antitrust and consumer protection issues featuring a faculty of government enforcers and leading practitioners, corporate in-house counsel, and economists and academics from around the globe. To best meet your needs, the program is organized to offer separate tracks for sessions covering international issues, litigation, and consumer protection. There is sure to be something of interest for everyone, from the least to most experienced lawyers.”
____________________
For more information see:
ABA Section of Antitrust Law – 60th Antitrust Spring Meeting
JANUARY 30-31 2012 – Toronto
The Canadian Institute will be holding an Anti-Corruption and Bribery Compliance conference from Monday January 30 to Tuesday January 31, 2012 at the Four Seasons Hotel, Toronto, Ontario.
Toronto – January 24, 2012
The Canadian Marketing Association will be holding a one-day seminar on January 24, 2012 on non-for-profit marketing: “Marketing Online Successfully”.
From the Canadian Marketing Association:
“If you’re a not-for-profit marketer who’s looking for a quick way to become more comfortable with and proficient at Internet direct marketing – this seminar is for you!
With the CMA’s Intensive One-Day Internet Marketing Seminar for Not-For-Profit marketers, you’ll save time, skip the aggravation and quickly move up your Internet marketing learning curve as you join a select group of Canadian not-for-profit marketers for a practical, interactive, hands-on session on Internet direct marketing.
Content areas will include: recap of online Canadians’ habits and usage; discussion about mobile, video and other upcoming trends; review of results tracking methodologies; in-depth look at direct response Internet media and pay per click search engine marketing as a basis for building SUCCESSFUL acquisition and advocacy based direct response campaigns; and real life examples and case studies of not for profit marketers who are doing Internet marketing right.
The seminar is led by Jay Aber, President of The Aber Group Inc., a leading Internet-based direct marketing firm whose clients include Plan Canada, WWF-Canada, Heart & Stroke, Habitat for Humanity, American Express, Sun Life & Stratford Shakespeare Festival among many others. In addition to his other accomplishments, Jay chaired the Digital Marketing Council for the CMA for six years and wrote and taught the inaugural CMA’s e-Marketing (now Digital Marketing) course.”
____________________
For more information see:
Canadian Marketing Association – Not-For-Profit Seminar: Marketing Online Successfully
On December 6, 2011, the federal Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart issued new online tracking guidelines for advertisers which, among other things, restrict the tracking of children and tracking technologies people can’t opt out of (i.e., turn off).
In making the announcement, which were part of remarks made at the Marketing and the Law Conference in Toronto (see: “Respecting Privacy Rights in the World of Online Behavioural Advertising”, Remarks by Jennifer Stoddard, Privacy Commissioner of Canada at the Marketing and the Law Conference (Toronto, December 6, 2011)), the Privacy Commissioner said:
“The use of online behavioural advertising has exploded and we’re concerned that Canadians’ privacy rights aren’t always being respected. Many Canadians don’t know how they’re being tracked – and that’s no surprise because, in too many cases, they have to dig down to the bottom of a long and legalistic privacy policy to find out. …
Some people like receiving ads targeted to their specific interests. Others are extremely uncomfortable with the notion of their online activities being tracked. People’s choices must be respected.”
Bloomberg has reported that federal Industry Minister Christian Paradis has again raised the prospect of amending Canada’s Investment Canada Act (the “ICA”) in remarks he made in New York last week (see: Canada Open to Changing Foreign-Takeover Law, Paradis Says).
The Industry Minister’s comments closely follow a C.D. Howe Institute report also issued last week calling for fundamental changes to the ICA to stimulate foreign direct investment in Canada, including a change to the overarching test for foreign investment approval (replacing the current “net benefit to Canada” test with a national interest test) (see: New Publications – C.D. Howe Institute Report – Reforming the Investment Canada Act: Walk More Softly, Carry a Bigger Stick).
The Commissioner of Competition, Melanie Aitken, addressed current enforcement priorities in two engaging and wide-ranging talks in Vancouver this evening: a keynote speech at a reception hosted by the University of British Columbia, National Centre for Business Law at the Four Seasons and a Vancouver Competition Policy Roundtable meeting organized by Professor Tom Ross of the Sauder School of Business.
The Canadian Institute will be holding an Advertising and Marketing Law Conference on Wednesday, January 25-26, 2012 at the Four Seasons Hotel, Toronto, Ontario.
From the Canadian Institute:
“We have obtained the highest quality speakers to present you with cutting edge analysis and practical guidance on the latest issues in this constantly evolving area of law. In fact, leaders in this field have been relying on our conference year after year to hone their skills, so join us at The Canadian Institute’s 18th Annual Advertising & Marketing Law program and be equipped with the tools necessary to be completely confident in your practice. Keynote Address: Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau Canada Recent Enforcement Initiatives and Future Directions of the Competition Bureau. In the past year we have already seen, and will continue to see significant developments. You will learn about them all through our stimulating and interactive mix of sessions, including:
The latest need to know enforcement trends and priorities of the Competition Bureau
An in-depth analysis of the Anti-Spam legislation – in anticipation of it being proclaimed into force
The noteworthy differences between our Anti-Spam legislation and the U.S. Can-Spam Act
A practical session on drafting disclaimers on all forms of media
The most up-to-date tips on running contests
Risk mitigation for all emerging and recently revived marketing & advertising techniques
The latest issues and trends from the U.S. and how they may affect you”
____________________
For more information see:
The Canadian Institute – Advertising and Marketing Law Conference
The Antitrust Law Section of the American Bar Association will be offering an online webinar on Remedies in Monopolization Cases on Wednesday, December 7, 2011.
From the ABA:
“The program will explore the thorny question of remedies for single firm anticompetitive conduct, including the structural, behavioral and damages remedies, from the EU and US perspectives. Our panelists will also explore the efficacy of remedies in high tech and other innovative industries. In addition, the program will also explore the very difficult issue of remedies in cases involving pricing conduct, intellectual property rights, and refusals to deal.”
____________________
For more information see:
American Bar Association – Unilateral Conduct Committee – Remedies in Monopolization Cases
The National Centre for Business Law will be hosting its 5th NCBL Annual General Meeting and Reception with guest speaker Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition on November 30, 2011 at the Four Seasons Hotel, Seasons Room, 791 West Georgia Street in Vancouver from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m.
For more information and registration details see:
___________________
The British Columbia Real Estate Association will be hosting its 2011 Instructor Development Workshop in Whistler from September 22nd to 25th 2011, for instructors of REALTORS in British Columbia.
Steve Szentesi will be facilitating a competition law workshop (amendments to the Competition Act and developments in the first two years in force) on Sunday, September 25th.
For more information about the IDW workshop, event schedule and speakers see BCREA’s website:
We are pleased to announce this upcoming antitrust leniency luncheon conference, moderated by our friends at Sutts, Strosberb LLP
____________________
Corporate Leniency in an Era of Increased Enforcement
Presented by the State Bar of Michigan’s Antitrust, Franchise and Trade Regulation Section.
It’s early morning and you are driving into the office. The phone rings. It is your best client in a panic. The morning supervisor called with surprising news: the FBI executed a federal warrant on their facility and federal officers are seizing cell phones, computers, hard drives, and hard files.
What does this mean? What happens next? Are they at risk individually?
In this era of increased antitrust enforcement, every practitioner should be familiar with the Department of Justice’s Corporate and Individual Leniency Programs. Knowing how and when to cooperate with the DOJ can mean the difference between amnesty and millions in fines/penalties and incarceration. This panel of experts will discuss the applicability of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (ACPERA), issues in-house counsel face in considering leniency, and the interaction of leniency applications with subsequent criminal investigations and civil lawsuits.
PANEL
Kevin Culum, United States Department of Justice (Cleveland, OH)
Jay Himes, Labaton Sucharow (New York, NY)
Gordon Lang, Nixon Peabody (Washington, DC)
MODERATORS
Andrew Morganti, Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Chair, SBM Antitrust, Franchise and Trade Regulation Section
L. Pahl Zinn, Dickinson Wright PLLC and Chair-Elect, SBM Antitrust, Franchise and Trade Regulation Section
WHEN
Friday, September 16, 2011 – 1:00 – 2:30 p.m.
WHERE
State Bar of Michigan Annual Meeting at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Dearborn, Michigan
____________________
For more information see State Bar of Michigan, Antitrust, Franchising & Trade Regulation Section:
The U.S. Department of Justice announced today that the NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. have abandoned their joint bid to acquire NYSE Euronext, following a decision by the U.S. DoJ to block the transaction.
In making the announcement, Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DoJ’s Antitrust Division said:
“The companies’ decision to abandon their bid for NYSE Euronext eliminates the competitive concerns developed during our investigation. … The acquisition would have removed incentives for competitive pricing, high quality of service, and innovation in the listing, trading and data services these exchange operators provide to the investing public and to new and established companies that need access to U.S. stock markets.”
Like Canada, transactions in the U.S. exceeding certain monetary thresholds are required to be pre-notified and obtain regulatory approval. In Canada, the pre-merger notification provisions of the Competition Act require both parties to specified types of transactions that exceed the statutory monetary thresholds under the Act to file pre-merger notification filings with the Competition Bureau.
Substantive Competition/Antitrust Concerns
It appears from the DoJ’s announcement that its concerns were based on overlap in several relevant markets, including for corporate stock listing services in the United States. According to the U.S. DoJ, the NYSE and NASDAQ are “effectively the only companies providing corporate stock listing services in the United States.”
In this regard, NYSE owns the New York Stock Exchange, the oldest stock exchange in the United States, while NASDAQ operates the NASDAQ Stock Market, the NASDAQ OMX BX (previously the Boston Stock Market) and the NASDAQ OMX PSX (previously the Philadelphia Stock Exchange).
Other relevant markets that appear to have been a concern for the DoJ included stock auction services, used at the open and close of trading and periodically during market imbalances, and trade reporting facilities, used for the reporting of stock trades occurring outside of a stock exchange, which according to the DoJ would have given the merged entity a monopoly post-merger (i.e., the NYSE and NASDAQ are currently the only two entities competing to collect this data).
For the DoJ news release see: Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandon Their Proposed Acquisition of NYSE Euronext After Justice Department Threatens Lawsuit.
For the Assistant Attorney General’s remarks see Remarks of Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney.
Maple Group Launches Rival Bid for TMX Group Inc.
The decision by NASDAQ OMX and IntercontinentalExchange to abandon their bid for the NYSE comes at the same time as a second rival bid has been launched by Maple Group Acquisition Corp. to acquire the TMX Group Inc. (see: TSX Will Prosper, Canadian Bidders Say). The London Stock Exchange Group PLC had already proposed a merger with the TMX worth about $40 a share.
While spokespersons for the rival bidder, a consortium of nine banks and pension funds, have been downplaying the regulatory approvals required for the bid, and in particular merger clearance, it is not clear that sufficient existing competition will remain to avoid behavioural or structural merger remedies being imposed if the rival bid is ultimately successful.
Existing remaining competition is both a substantive factor for merger review under the Competition Act and a key factor for the Competition Bureau in its review of proposed mergers (see for example the Bureau’s Merger Enforcement Guidelines).
In this regard, potential overlap includes the Alpha Group (a new trading system that may be seen as competing and overlapping with the TMX) and CDS Inc. (that handles the clearing of share trades).
On the other hand, the reality is that, unlike some other jurisdictions, fully contested mergers are rare in Canada with most substantive issues being resolved by way of negotiated settlements (i.e., remedies imposed by the merging parties) (see e.g., the Competition Bureau’s Information Bulletin on Merger Remedies).
Potential remedies in this case could include behavioural remedies partitioning existing bank-owned competing exchange facilities from the TMX or the divestiture of some existing bank-owned exchange assets.
One interesting aspect that will remain to be seen is whether existing bank-owned trading assets are seen as merely an incremental addition to the TMX share or whether any such assets are seen as a sufficiently vigorous new entrant as to pose more serious competition law concerns for the Bureau.
For more information about Canadian merger control see: Merger Control, Merger Control FAQs and Investment Canada.
The Corporate Counsel Committee of the Canadian Bar Association’s National Competition Law Section will be presenting a “Brown Bag” Teleseminar: Competition Compliance: Up Your Game, Add to the Bottom Line, and Be a Corporate Star on Wednesday, June 1, 2011.
From the CBA National Competition Law Section:
“Today, in Canada, corporations and their managers that do not comply with competition law play a high risk game of facing massive fines, class action lawsuits, and event jail – not only at home, but wherever else they do business around the globe. Learn the latest techniques and secrets of how to make compliance part of your company’s DNA, hot to turn procurement staff into cartel scouts, and hot cutting edge screening techniques are enhancing detection of violations worldwide.”
For more information about the Brown Bag see: Program Flyer and CBA National Competition Law Section.
For more information about Canadian competition law compliance see: Competition Law Compliance Programs.
Canada’s Minister of Industry Tony Clement announced May 12th that he will be asking members of Canada’s oil production industry to appear before a new parliamentary committee to “explain their pricing methods to Canadians”.
In making the announcement, Clement said:
“And we are hearing the questions and concerns Canadians have about fluctuating fuel prices. We know that the high cost of gas can be a burden for Canadian families. Everyone is feeling the pinch at the pumps. And especially at a time when household budgets are already tight, Canadians want and deserve answers.
That is why I will be asking refiners, distributors and retailers to come to Ottawa to appear before a parliamentary committee and explain their pricing methods to Canadians. Members of Parliament will get the chance to ask them the common-sense questions we’ve been hearing from Canadians.
I should note that this is not the first action the Harper Government has taken on this issue. We passed the Fairness at the Pumps Act to ensure that consumers are getting what they pay for when they fill up. We have expanded the powers of the Commissioner of Competition, who broke up a significant price-fixing cartel in Quebec last year.” (see: Statement from the Honourable Tony Clement)
Yesterday’s announcement came as part of an escalating public debate about rising gasoline prices in Canada, some of which have raised renewed questions about whether the recent high gasoline prices were the result of anti-competitive coordination among suppliers.
Gasoline prices have been the subject of earlier parliamentary committee scrutiny (see for example the 2003 Industry Standing Committee Report, Gasoline Prices in Canada, which met with national, regional and multinational producers to study the “causes of the recent increase in the price of gasoline, and the significant negative effects” that it was having on the economy in 2003). The Competition Bureau has also conducted a number of inquiries into the gasoline industry in various parts of Canada in the past and has issued materials for consumers relating to gas prices (see for example, Competition Bureau – Gas Prices).
The most recent gasoline price debate has also again raised the nonsensical term “gouging” by some commentators (see for example the recent Globe and Mail article that reported past investigations by the Competition Bureau stating that “the Bureau … found no evidence of price-gouging on a national scale”).
The federal Competition Act, however, does not regulate individual competitors except in relatively rare circumstances – the Act is commonly said to regulate competition not individual competitors – and has nothing whatsoever to say about “gouging” or high prices per se – for example, high pricing alone does not constitute abuse of dominance under the Act.
The Act does, however, prohibit criminal conspiracies (cartels), including price-fixing conspiracies, which, however, requires evidence of an agreement between actual or potential competitors. For example, in 2010, the Competition Bureau concluded its largest criminal investigation in the Quebec gasoline price-fixing case involving 38 individuals and 14 companies (see: criminal charges against 25 invididuals and 3 companies in Quebec gas price-fixing case, criminal charges laid by competition bureau in gas price-fixing case).
Also, while the Minister has the power to cause the Commissioner of Competition to commence inquiries, and contravention of the criminal conspiracy provisions of the Act can lead to severe penalties (including fines of up to Cdn. $25 million and/or imprisonment for up to 14 years, per count), a Bureau investigation is unlikely to be the quick fix Canadians may be looking for the high gas prices and is more part of the current political theatre. For example, the Bureau’s last major investigation, in the Quebec gasoline price-fixing case, took about three years to conclude.
Steve Szentesi and Tom Hakemi will be presenting a lunch and learn seminar at Synergy Business Lawyers in Vancouver on December 17, 2010. The seminar will include an overview of Canadian competition law and enforcement, the 2009 and 2010 Competition Act amendments, key competition law issues that arise in a business law practice (including in relation to joint venture and strategic alliances, mergers, commercial agreements, restrictive covenants, advertising and marketing for business law clients and participation in trade association activities).
Steve Szentesi and Tom Hakemi will be teaching sections of Canadian Competition Law at the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law, beginning in January, 2011. This will be a survey course reviewing the key areas of competition law in Canada including criminal conspiracies (cartels), merger control, abuse of dominance (monopolies), misleading advertising and deceptive marketing. Also covered will be key economic concepts important to determining whether and to what extent the federal Competition Act may apply to a range of business activities. The recent sweeping amendments to Canada’s competition law will also be summarized, with reference to key international jurisprudence and recent developments to assist with the interpretation of Canada’s new competition law rules.
For more information about UBC courses see: Registration, Course Timetable and Exam Schedule Information. For a more detailed description of the course see: Competition Law Courses.
The European Commission announced earlier today that the Commission had fined 11 air cargo carriers 799 million Euro in a global air cargo price-fixing cartel that, according to the Commission, affected cargo services within the European Economic Area.
The 11 undertakings fined included Air Canada, Air France-KLM, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Japan Airlines, Singapore Airlines and Qantas.
In making its announcement, the Commission stated:
“Today the Commission fined 11 air cargo carriers a total of €799.445.000. The cartel members coordinated various elements of price for a period of over six years, from December 1999 to 14 February 2006. The cartel arrangements consisted of numerous contacts between airlines, at both bilateral and multilateral level, covering flights from, to and within the EEA. Airlines providing airfreight services primarily offer the transport of cargo to freight forwarders, who arrange the carriage of these goods including associated services and formalities on behalf of shippers.”
According to the Commission, the contracts on prices between the carriers began with discussions of fuel surcharges (with flat rate surcharges per kilo for air cargo shipments), which was later extended to include an agreed upon security surcharge and concerted refusals to pay a commission on surcharges to freight forwarder clients.
Lufthansa (and its subsidiary Swiss) received full immunity under the Commission’s Leniency Programme, as it brought the cartel to the Commission’s attention. In addition, several of the carriers’ fines were reduced for cooperation with the Commission, including Air Canada, whose fine was reduced 15%.
These most recent fines imposed by the Commission follow earlier fines imposed in Canada. For a copy of the European Commission’s news release see: Antitrust: Commission fines 11 air cargo carriers €799 million in price fixing cartel.
The Vancouver Competition Policy Roundtable will be meeting Wednesday, November 3, 2010. The program will involve a discussion about the developments with respect to class actions in antitrust, led by Vancouver class action lawyers with updates on the state of play in the field. This breakfast meeting will be held from 8:00 – 9:30 on Wednesday morning.
The Vancouver Competition Policy Roundtable, which is organized by professor Tom Ross from the Sauder School of Business, discusses current issues in competition policy, often facilitated by a guest speaker. Participants include lawyers, economists, students, government officials and industry executives.
The Competition Bureau announced today that Cargolux Airlines International S.A. had plead guilty in Federal Court and was fined $2.5 million for its participation in an air-cargo price-fixing cartel impacting Canada.
In making its announcement, the third cartel enforcement announcement in as many days (see also: Competition Bureau Launches Investigation into Quebec Construction Industry and Embraco North America Inc. Pleads Guilty to Price-fixing Conspiracy), the Bureau said:
“Cargolux admitted that it engaged in a conspiracy to fix air cargo fuel surcharges for international air cargo transportation services from Canada between April 2002 and February 2006.
“Price-fixing is a serious crime that denies the benefits of competition and artificially increases the prices we pay for goods and services,” said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. “The Bureau will not hesitate to take action against conspirators when it uncovers evidence that the law has been broken.”
Cargolux’s penalty brings the total fines in the Bureau’s air cargo investigation to more than $17 million. In 2009, Air France, KLM, Martinair, Qantas, and British Airways each pleaded guilty to fixing air cargo surcharges for shipments on certain routes from Canada. The Bureau’s investigation into the alleged conduct of other air cargo carriers continues.
The Bureau’s investigation has benefited from the cooperation of certain air cargo carriers through the Bureau’s Leniency Program. This program creates incentives for parties to address their criminal liability by co-operating with the Bureau in its ongoing investigation of other alleged cartel participants.”
As a result of sweeping amendments to the Competition Act in March 2009 and March 2010, Canada’s conspiracy laws have been significantly amended making it both easier to prosecute criminal conspiracies (i.e., price-fixing, market allocation and supply restriction agreements between competitors) and more than doubling the previous penalties. Maximum penalties for contravention of the criminal conspiracy provisions of the Competition Act are now fines of up to $25 million, imprisonment for up to 14 years, or both.
It will remain to be seen, however, how Canadian courts interpret the new U.S.-style conspiracy rules in Canada, given that the former conspiracy offences were shaped by over a hundred years of case law and the fact that, unlike in the U.S., contested competition law cases are far more uncommon in Canada.
For more on criminal conspiracy and bid-rigging law in Canada see: Conspiracy / Cartels, Conspiracy FAQs, Conspiracy News, Bid-rigging, Bid-rigging News.
The Toronto Sun and others reported today that the Competition Bureau has launched a new criminal investigation in Quebec, in relation to Quebec’s construction industry.
The Bureau’s recently announced investigation follows closely on the recent price-fixing investigation in the Quebec gasoline industry (see: Criminal Charges Against 25 Individuals and 3 Companies in Quebec Gas Price-fixing Case), which was the largest investigation in the Bureau’s history resulting in the seizure of over 100,000 records, 90 locations searched the interception of thousands of telephone conversations (through the use of wiretaps) and 38 individuals and 14 companies accused of criminal price-fixing offences.
In reporting this case earlier today, the Toronto Sun stated that the investigation was separate from an ongoing criminal bid-rigging investigation involving Quebec construction companies and quoted Bureau officials as recognizing that the construction industry is particularly susceptible to price-fixing and bid-rigging conduct: “The construction sector is highly vulnerable to collusion. … It’s something that’s recognized worldwide. So in that sense, I don’t think Quebec is worse than other provinces.”
This recent investigation is one of a number of ongoing Bureau criminal investigations under Canada’s recently amended Competition Act, under which the maximum penalties are fines of up to $25 million (per count), imprisonment for up to 14 years, or both.
This recent investigation also accords with the Bureau’s continuing focus on the detection of domestic cartels in Canada (i.e., illegal price-fixing, market allocation and output restriction / boycott agreements between competitors).
For more on the criminal conspiracy law in Canada see: Conspiracy / Cartels, Conspiracy FAQs and Conspiracy News.
Following a Special General Meeting earlier today, member boards of The Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) ratified a settlement with the Competition Bureau to end the four year MLS abuse of dominance case.
In making the announcement, the Commissioner of Competition Melanie Aitken said:
“I am pleased that CREA members have voted in favour of this agreement,” said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. “This resolution is welcome news for both consumers and real estate agents in Canada. For Canadian homeowners, it ensures that they will have the freedom to choose which services they want from a real estate agent and to pay for only those services. For real estate agents, it ensures that they will be able to offer the variety of services and prices that meet the needs of consumers.” See: Competition Bureau.
CREA’s President said:
“We are pleased that after careful consideration and reflection, real estate Boards and Associations from across Canada have endorsed the agreement. … This 10-year agreement brings a close to a long process of negotiation with the Competition Bureau and will allow CREA and REALTORS(R) to do what they do best – help people with the biggest financial decision of their lives, buying and selling a home in these challenging economic times.” See: CNW.
This settlement, and the ten year consent agreement that will be registered with the Competition Tribunal ends the four year dispute between CREA and the Bureau. The settlement will also be the most significant since the 1988 Prohibition Order involving CREA and a number of its member boards that ended another major investigation into organized real estate in the 1980s and reshaped the industry.
On October 22, 2010, the Competition Bureau issued two updated merger control guidance documents: an updated Fees and Service Standards Policy for Mergers and Merger-Related Matters (“Merger Policy”) and Fees and Service Standards Handbook for Mergers and Merger-Related Matters (“Merger Handbook”) (which had been issued for public comments – see: Competition Bureau Issues New Draft Fee and Service Standards Handbook for Mergers for Comment). Both of the Bureau’s new merger guidance documents come into effect on November 2, 2010.
In releasing its new merger control guidance documents, the Bureau stated:
“The Merger Handbook and the Procedures Guide incorporate changes required owing to recent amendments to the Competition Act, the Notifiable Transactions Regulations, and the Merger Policy, as well as feedback solicited during consultations regarding fees and service standards held earlier this year.
The Merger Handbook implements service standards that reflect greater consistency with statutory waiting periods, and also reduces the information that merging parties are typically required to provide in order to commence the Bureau’s merger review service standard.
The Procedures Guide sets out the current policies and procedures relating to the submission, whether in paper form or electronically, of notifications and requests for advance ruling certificates (ARCs). In particular, procedural details for the submission of electronic and paper filings have been harmonized, such that electronic filings will only be accepted during business hours (9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET) and any notification or ARC request submitted after 5 p.m. ET will be acknowledged on the next business day. For more information on how to file notifications and ARCs, please consult the Bureau’s Web site.”
The Bureau’s recently issued Merger Policy and Merger Handbook reflect both a general continuation of efforts by the Bureau to update and standardize its enforcement and administration procedures, as well as a recent effort to update and further standardize its approach to merger review in particular.
With respect to mergers, this has included, for example, the recent issuance of a new Bureau policy on hostile transactions (see: Competition Bureau Publishes Policy Relating to Hostile Transactions), its recent Merger Review Performance Report (see: Competition Bureau Issues New Merger Review Performance Report – May 2010) and the Bureau’s recently announced consultations on its Merger Enforcement Guidelines (see: Competition Bureau Announces Consultations on Merger Enforcement Guidelines).
For more about Canadian merger control see: Canadian Merger Control, Merger Control FAQs and Canadian Merger Control News.
I am pleased to announce that I have joined Hakemi & Company in Vancouver and will be expanding my existing competition law practice in conjunction with Tom Hakemi’s growing litigation practice.
For those of you that know Tom, you will know that his practice includes a full range of litigation services, including commercial litigation matters and government investigations in areas including securities, shareholder and partnership disputes, defamation, commercial contracts and regulatory investigations.
We will also be joined by Christine Mingie whose practice includes a broad range of corporate/commercial and regulatory law services, with particular strengths in the gaming, anti-money laundering, privacy and commercial arbitration areas.
We think that the expansion of Hakemi & Company will provide significant additional strength to our existing and future clients, particularly in the commercial litigation and regulatory law areas.
For more about our team see: Tom Hakemi, Joel Hill, Nick Ellegood, Christine Mingie and Steve Szentesi.
Best regards,
Steve
CONTACT US
Our competition law practice includes a full range of Canadian competition/antitrust law and consulting services for domestic and international clients in relation to mergers, cartels, Competition Bureau investigations, compliance and advertising and marketing law matters. Contact Us.
OUR BOOKS
The Competition Law Guide for Trade Associations in Canada is a practical and concise summary of Canadian competition law as it applies to trade, professional and other associations.
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.
This course is available
to members of Canadian
real estate boards.
For more information see ACRE