Archive for the 'Associations' Category
On January 6, 2012 the Competition Bureau announced its first cartel case under Canada’s amended Competition Act, partially brought under the new section 45 of the Competition 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 new cartel cases currently being investigated, the Bureau highlighted its stepped-up enforcement of cartels:
“’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 public 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 will be posting overviews of Canadian conspiracy and bid-rigging laws, each concluding with practical steps companies can take to reduce potential criminal liability (and overviews of the Bureau’s Immunity and Leniency Programs, which are increasingly proving to be key for both Bureau investigations and parties to reduce liability).
For Part 1 see: here.
We read this rather fine article by Ted Banks recently on corporate antitrust compliance in Competition Policy International and reprint it here with permission. CPI is currently featuring a series of articles on corporate compliance.
By Theodore L. Banks
Ted Banks is counsel to the law firm of Schoeman Updike Kaufman & Scharf: www.schoeman.com and President of Compliance & Competition Consultants, LLC: www.complianceconsultants.com). First published in Competition Policy International (CPI) Antitrust Chronicle (February 2012(1)).
Antitrust Compliance – It’s All About the Culture
INTRODUCTION
What does it take to develop an antitrust compliance program that works? There are a lot of pieces. The employees must be presented with materials that are directly relevant to each of their jobs. It must be done in a way that is easily understandable. It must be ubiquitous, so that little or no effort is needed to gain access to information. There should also be business controls so that violations are not easy to accomplish—or difficult to detect.
We’ve known these things for a long time. In antitrust, which in many ways is the grandfather (or perhaps the godfather) of corporate compliance programs, we’ve had detailed policies, handbooks, training courses, videos, slides. No shortage of information—yet the violations continue. The Justice Department seems to have given up on compliance when it comes to antitrust. Their main method to control cartel behavior is not to encourage prevention (i.e., compliance), but to encourage confession (i.e., the amnesty program). In fact, they are apparently so disgusted with the sorry state of compliance[1] that they got a carve-out from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines when it comes to antitrust. If convicted of a violation of any other federal criminal law, the company can get credit for good intentions if its compliance program met the definition of an “effective” program. But not true for antitrust.
It is not as if antitrust is the only area where compliance programs do not seem to be making continuous improvement. The recently released 2011 National Business Ethics Survey from the Ethics Resource Center is not very encouraging. It showed an increase in companies that employees thought had a “weak ethics culture” and where employees felt pressured to ignore the company’s own ethical policies or break the law. Employees perceive there is more retaliation against employees that report wrongdoing, and more employees thought their managers were unethical. And what do they think of senior management? More perception of self-interest without being guided by ethics.
Interestingly, the failures that were identified were not ones of lack of knowledge, but were failures of culture.
On February 17, 2012, the Competition Bureau announced that Construction G.T.R.L. (1990) Inc., Acoustique JCG Inc. and Enterprises de Construction OPC Inc. pleaded guilty to bid-rigging in Quebec Superior Court in a case relating to the expansion of the Chicoutimi Hospital in 2003 (see: Quebec Construction Companies Plead Guilty to Rigging Bids for the Chicoutimi Hospital).
In making the announcement, the Bureau said:
“The court ordered Construction G.T.R.L. to pay a fine of $50,000, and Acoustique JCG and Entreprises de Construction OPC to pay a fine of $25,000 each. The companies are subject to a court order for a period of 10 years.
‘Bid-rigging harms everyone but the criminals who cheat the system for their own financial gain,’ said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. ‘In this case, the bid-rigging scheme ultimately harmed the Chicoutimi Hospital and Saguenay residents, by preventing the hospital from obtaining a competitive price for its renovation.’”
The construction industry has long been a target of competition/antitrust regulators. For example, some of the construction related cases in Canada, many of which have also involved trade associations and have gone back about a century, have included building contractors, corrugated metal pipe manufacturers, electrical contractors, gypsum dealers and manufacturers, plumbing contractors, road surfacing contractors, chain link fence contractors, among many others.
The Antitrust Law Section of the American Bar Association recently announced the publication of Antitrust Law Developments (Seventh). Antitrust Law Developments is the seminal general U.S. text on antitrust law, a landmark of scholarship and reflects the collective efforts of many leading antitrust law practitioners and scholars.
From the American Bar Association:
“Antitrust Law Developments (Seventh) is the seminal comprehensive review of federal antitrust law, with reports on current case law and administrative and legislative developments current through 2011.
This 2-volume set updates you on key decisions in the courts, and developments at the enforcement agencies, keeping you current in every area of antitrust practice. Each edition of Antitrust Law Developments is designed to improve upon, as well as update, prior editions, and to ensure consistency with everchanging developments in this dynamic area of law.
This new seventh edition addresses important developments, including the Supreme Court’s decisions in Twombly, Leegin, American Needle, linkLine, and Weyerhaeuser and their treatment in the lower courts. Developments in the courts of appeals relating to bundled discounts and the antitrust-intellectual property interface all receive comprehensive treatment. The chapter on mergers and acquisitions has been substantially revised to reflect the new DOJ/FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines and new foreign merger control regimes, and the discussion of the misuse doctrine in the chapter on intellectual property has been reorganized and revised.
Antitrust Law Developments (Seventh) is the product of an enormous team effort of Antitrust Section members and is a “must have” for every antitrust practitioner.
On January 6, 2012 the Competition Bureau announced its first cartel case under Canada’s amended Competition Act (partially brought under the new section 45 of the Competition 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 new cartel cases currently being investigated, the Bureau said:
“’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.’
The charges are the first to arise from the Bureau’s investigation into price-fixing cartel in the polyurethane foam industry. Anyone with information relating to this investigation is encouraged to contact the Competition Bureau.
The Bureau’s investigation benefitted from cooperation under the Bureau’s Immunity and Leniency Programs, which create incentives for parties to address their criminal liability by cooperating with the Bureau in its ongoing investigation and prosecution of other alleged cartel participants.
Under the Competition Act, an agreement between competitors to fix prices, allocate markets or restrict output in Canada is a criminal offence. In March 2010, amendments to the conspiracy provision of the Act came into force.”
The Bureau also recently confirmed that it is investigating potential effects in Canada from the alleged global LIBOR-TIBOR bank cartel (see: Cartel Update: Competition Bureau Investigates Alleged Interbank Lending Rate Coordination), that it continues to receive guilty pleas in the Quebec gasoline price-fixing case, which was the largest such investigation in the Bureau’s history (see: Cartels Update: Seven More Individuals Plead Guilty in Criminal Quebec Gasoline Price-fixing Cartel) and that it remains focused on both maintaining and increasing its cooperation with global enforcement agencies in the detection and enforcement of cartels.
Last week, the Competition Bureau announced that Construction G.T.R.L. (1990) Inc., Acoustique JCG Inc. and Enterprises de Construction OPC Inc. pleaded guilty to bid-rigging in Quebec Superior Court in relation to the expansion of the Chicoutimi Hospital in 2003 (see: Quebec Construction Companies Plead Guilty to Rigging Bids for the Chicoutimi Hospital).
In making this announcement, the Bureau said:
“The court ordered Construction G.T.R.L. to pay a fine of $50,000, and Acoustique JCG and Entreprises de Construction OPC to pay a fine of $25,000 each. The companies are subject to a court order for a period of 10 years.
‘Bid-rigging harms everyone but the criminals who cheat the system for their own financial gain,’ said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. ‘In this case, the bid-rigging scheme ultimately harmed the Chicoutimi Hospital and Saguenay residents, by preventing the hospital from obtaining a competitive price for its renovation.’”
The construction industry has long been a target of competition/antitrust regulators. For example, some of the construction related cases in Canada, many of which have also involved trade associations (and have gone back about a century), have included building contractors, corrugated metal pipe manufacturers, electrical contractors, gypsum dealers and manufacturers, plumbing contractors, among many others.
There have also been a number of recent bid-rigging cases in Canada, many of which have involved construction and construction supply related companies.
For example, see: Guilty Plea and $425,000 Fine for Bid-rigging in Montreal, Charges Laid in Residential Construction Bid-rigging Scheme in Montreal, Competition Bureau Exposes Sewer Services Cartel in Quebec, Competition Bureau Obtains Court Order Against the Saskatchewan Roofing Contractors Association.
Canadian Marketing Association – 2012 CMA Summit
MAY 16 – 17 2012
The Canadian Marketing Association (CMA) will be holding its 2012 Summit entitled Connections: Listen, Engage, Measure in Toronto from May 16 – 17 2012.
From the CMA:
“Marketing is about connecting. Connecting with consumers, connecting with customers, connecting with each other. The CMA Summit 2012 (formerly the CMA National Convention) is all about Connections. How these connections are made, maintained and measured.
Learn from world-class speakders (keynote and workshop), visionaries, tactical experts, leading-edge strategists and marketing miracle workers who will help you find your way in an ever-changing business environment. Give yourself the greatest advantage over your competitors knowledge!
Network with the who’s who of the marketing world. Make important business connections with clients, suppliers, competitors and peers. This summit brings the marketing world together in one convenient place!”
For more see:
Connections: Listen, Engage, Measure
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact: contact
In an interesting story in the Montreal Gazette today, Douglas Quan reports that a Public Safety Canada study calls for “more independent oversight” to “combat bribery, extortion, collusive bidding and other illegal activities in Canada’s commercial construction industry”:
“’Every contractual link provides an opportunity for someone to pay a bribe in return for the award of the contract,’ the study said.
The corruption can take many forms. Contractors have been known to pay bribes in order to obtain a contract. Union officials have threatened work slowdowns unless contractors pay them money. Competing firms have entered into agreements where they share their bid prices with one another prior to bidding in order to pre-determine the winner and then the winning firm pays a kickback to the losing firm. Such corruption can lead to unsafe construction projects because they ‘fail to meet safety requirements as a result of fraud in building materials or the bribery of public inspectors,’ the study warned.”
The construction industry has long been the target of allegations and investigations by competition/antitrust regulators. For example, some of the construction related cases in Canada, many of which have also involved trade associations, have included building contractors, corrugated metal pipe manufacturers, electrical contractors, gypsum dealers and manufacturers, plumbing contractors, among many others.
A question commonly posed to competition counsel, including me, when talking about the risks of meetings between competitors and information exchanges (for example in the trade association context) is whether it is illegal to merely talk about competitively sensitive information – for example, prices, costs, markets, customers, suppliers, strategic or business plans and so on.
In an interesting speech issued a little while back (Antitrust Issues Related to Benchmarking and Other Information Exchanges), Thomas Rosch, a Commissioner of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, addresses a number of current and historical issues related to information exchanges and benchmarking. Given that many of the same issues can arise regardless of jurisdiction (though enforcement agencies in Europe tend to approach the issue more strictly), I thought I would post some of the highlights of his remarks.
MARCH 27, 2012 – Toronto
Advertising Standards Canada (“ASC”) will be holding an introductory seminar relating to its Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, “Canada’s principal instrument of advertising regulation.”
The CBC and others have reported on the continued progress of Bill C-10, the “Safe Streets and Communities Act”, which is now undergoing 11 days of Senate committee hearings (the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee) that will hear from about 100 witnesses.
Conservative Justice and Public Safety Ministers Rob Nicholson and Vic Toews are asking Senators to “expeditiously” approve the Bill.
Bill C-10, which completed second reading in the Senate in December, would, among other things, eliminate conditional sentences of two years or less (i.e., sentences served in the community rather than a correctional facility) from being ordered by courts for violation of two of the core criminal offences under the Competition Act: criminal conspiracy agreements (section 45) and bid-rigging agreements (section 47).
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”
On January 19, 2012, the Competition Tribunal set hearing dates in the ongoing abuse of dominance case The Commissioner of Competition v. The Toronto Real Estate Board (see Scheduling Order).
The evidentiary portion of the hearing in this case is scheduled to begin on September 10, 2012 in Toronto.
A claim against two major real estate boards and their executives for breaching terms of an earlier settlement agreement, common law and Competition Act conspiracy and certain economic torts survived a motion to dismiss last week. The reasons for judgment provide insight into the sufficiency of pleadings in cases involving allegations of anti-competitive conspiracies against businesses and their executives.
Last Friday, Mr. Justice Kenneth L. Campbell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a motion by the defendants in Dale v. The Toronto Real Estate Board to dismiss Realtysellers (Ontario) Limited’s (“Realtysellers”) action against The Canadian Real Estate Board (“CREA”), The Toronto Real Estate Board (“TREB”) and 47 other defendants (for a copy of the decision see: Dale v. The Toronto Real Estate Board).
We are pleased to provide this global competition update, with a focus on Asia Pacific, from our friends at Rajah Tann in Singapore.
____________________
Happy New Year! Welcome to our refreshed Competition Review 2012, which presents an overview of developments in competition laws from around the world in the past few months, with a focus on ASEAN and Asia. This issue covers developments, which have occurred in the second half of 2011 that may interest you.
Each of the decisions and studies discussed below is intended to give you a flavor of the issues in the competition and anti-trust scene so that, when you review your business activities, structure new deals or make acquisitions, you have these issues at the back of your mind and provide for them. For ease of convenience we have organized our Competition Review into three sections – anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominance and mergers.
We set out below some of the key principles that emerge from the cases discussed below:
(a) co-operating with competition authorities for a speedy resolution may help reduce penalties (see EU: European Commission (‘Commission’) Fines Producers Of CRT Glass €128 Million In Cartel Settlement);
(b) a competition authority may recommend shareholders to replace their directors or officers if they do not fully cooperate with investigations (see Indonesia: Indonesian Competition Authority KPPU Recommends President Director Be Replaced);
(c) even though a competition authority may not have powers to review mergers, it may investigate the transaction for other anti-competitive aspects (see Malaysia: Malaysia Competition Commission (‘MYCC’) To Investigate Air Asia-Malaysian Airlines (‘MAS’), Share Swap And Collaborative Agreement);
(d) exchanging information between competitors through a third party, such as software service providers, may lead to a violation of competition laws if the exchange is of sensitive information (see UK: Motor Insurers Agree To Limit Data Exchange And Provide Commitments to the Office Of Fair Trading (‘OFT’)); and
(e) not all jurisdictions, where merging parties have presence, will require merger notification. Undertakings with large presence in one jurisdiction may not have sufficiently significant presence in other jurisdictions that crosses notification triggers (see Indonesia: Microsoft’s Acquisition Of Skype Does Not Need Notification).
On January 4, 2012, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it filed complaints against three of the largest U.S. suppliers of ductile iron pipe fittings for an alleged price-fixing cartel.
The FTC is also alleging that parties used a trade association (the Ductile Iron Fittings Research Association) to exchange information and monitor adherence to the cartel agreement.
See: FTC Action Protects Competition in Market for Iron Pipe Fittings Used in Municipal Water Systems
The past year has been a busy one for Canadian competition law.
Developments in 2011 include new cases, enforcement and legislation in most key areas including abuse of dominance (the Competition Bureau’s ongoing challenge of The Toronto Real Estate Board and CREA settlement in late 2010), criminal conspiracy (developments in price-fixing class action litigation and some Bureau enforcement), refusal to deal (several important private access section 75 cases, including a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal), contested mergers (in the waste and airline markets), price maintenance (the merchant fees case involving Visa and MasterCard) and misleading advertising (involving Bell Canada, Rogers and others).
The Competition Bureau is testing the new rules under Canada’s Competition Act, which came into force in 2009 and 2010, and private plaintiffs are creating new law in a number of ongoing competition/antitrust class actions in Canada (principally indirect purchaser price-fixing cases relating to the sale and supply of dynamic random access, or “DRAMs”, high fructose corn syrup and computer operating systems).
At the same time, several new pieces of legislation have been introduced including a federal omnibus crime bill, which will eliminate conditional sentences for some competition law offences, and sweeping new anti-spam legislation (Bill C-28 or “FISA“) that once in force will be among the strictest anti-spam regimes in the world.
The Commissioner of Competition, and other federal enforcement officials including the RCMP, have also expressed intentions to adopt tougher enforcement stances in relation to competition law and other white collar crime.
In general, these developments mean that it remains important for Canadian companies, organizations and their executives to maintain a practical awareness of Canadian competition law.
Some of the key competition law and related developments of 2011 include:
Our friends at Associations Plus in Alberta have launched a new blog, with their latest blog post highlighting some of the practical aspects of Canada’s new federal anti-spam legislation (Bill C-28). See: $10 Million is the New Hefty Price Tag for Unsolicited E-mail Blasts!
We wish them all the best with their new associations blog.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
Most association activities are legitimate and unlikely to raise competition law concerns. However, given that many, if not most, association activities involve the direct interaction of competitors, it is prudent for association executives, staff and their advisors to take practical steps to reduce potential competition law risk.
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.
On November 2, 2011, Madam Justice Simpson of the federal Competition Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) granted leave to Realtysellers (“RS”) and The Canadian Real Estate Association (“CREA”) to intervene in the Toronto Real Estate Board (“TREB”) abuse of dominance case.
Following the Tribunal’s decision, CREA’s President Gary Morse said:
“We are pleased that the Tribunal is willing to hear our position in this matter and look forward to contributing to the Tribunal on important issues that will affect not only TREB and its members, but will also have broader implications for other Boards and Associations … The important issues under discussion may lead to a Tribunal Order affecting data sharing over the Internet which directly affects the interests of all CREA members … It is important for us, and our members, to be at the table and part of this discussion.”
CREA and RS both moved for leave to intervene in the TREB abuse of dominance case on October 18, 2011.
Abuse of Dominance
To establish abuse of dominance under the Competition Act, which is one of the Act’s civil “reviewable matters”, the Commissioner of Competition must establish: (i) that a firm (or firms) is dominant (possesses market power in a relevant market), (ii) the firm has engaged in a practice of anti-competitive acts and (iii) the practice has had, is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially.
The Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) commenced its case against TREB in May 2011, arguing that TREB was using its control of the MLS System to pass rules and policies restricting brokers access to and use of TREB’s MLS System. In particular, the Bureau has taken the position that certain TREB rules regarding the use of its MLS data prevents brokers from using “virtual office websites” (secure, password protected “VOWs” to provide real estate brokerage services to their customers over the Internet).
With respect to the necessary elements to establish abuse of dominance, the Bureau is arguing that TREB is dominant (in the residential real estate services market in the Greater Toronto area), that is has engaged in a practice of anti-competitive acts (rules governing the use of its MLS data) and that its conduct has resulted in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition.
CREA’s and Realtysellers’ Intervenor Applications
The Competition Tribunal Act provides that any person may intervene in Tribunal proceedings with leave from the Tribunal, which has held that applicants for intervenor status must meet the following elements: (i) they are directly affected, (ii) the matter is legitimately within the scope of the Tribunal’s consideration (or sufficiently relevant to its mandate), (iii) the intervenor’s representations are relevant to an issue raised by the Commissioner and (iv) the intervenor will bring a unique or distinct perspective to the proceedings.
CREA sought leave to intervene to deal with, among other things, relevant market definition (product and market definition), the use and competitive impact of VOWs (and other data-sharing vehicles in Canada) and the impacts of potential remedies on CREA and its members (including on its MLS and other trademarks).
Madam Justice Simpson granted CREA leave to intervene with respect to: (i) the use and competitive impact of other (i.e., non-VOW) Internet data-sharing vehicles in Canada, (ii) the appropriate terms of use/conditions to be included in rules to implement non-VOW Internet data-sharing vehicles and (iii) the impact of proposed remedies on CREA and its members (including on its MLS and other trademarks). With respect to process, the Tribunal granted CREA leave to intervene to review discovery transcripts and productions, call two fact or expert witnesses, cross-examine the Commissioner’s witnesses, participate in pre-hearing proceedings and make oral and written submissions.
The Tribunal also granted RS leave to intervene with respect to: (i) the cost savings and operational efficiencies of operating a virtual office (and the savings that can be passed on to consumers), (ii) the impact of TREB’s current rules and policies (including its recent VOW policy) on non-traditional brokerages that want to supply MLS information to consumers through a virtual office and (iii) the proposed order and impact it may have on non-traditional brokerages that want to provide consumers with MLS information through virtual offices.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
On October 25, 2011, the Competition Bureau published the Commissioner of Competition’s speech given at the 2011 Canadian Bar Association’s Annual Competition Law Conference in Ottawa.
It is fair to say that the Commissioner’s recent speech presented a singular tone across the civil and criminal competition law areas: enhanced enforcement.
Of the Commissioner’s remarks, some of the more interesting points include the Bureau’s increased focus on reviewing non-notifiable mergers (i.e., transactions that do not trigger the notification thresholds under the Competition Act), the statement that the Bureau has begun to revoke markers in some immunity cases where in its view immunity applicants are not complying with its Immunity Program and a subtle suggestion that the Bureau was preparing to bring, but not quite yet in a position to commence, the first conspiracy cases under the amended section 45 (Canada’s new hard core criminal conspiracy offences). The following are some highlights from the Commissioner’s recent speech.
We are pleased to announce the forthcoming publication by Carswell this fall of The Competition Law Guide for Associations in Canada jointly authored by Steve Szentesi and Mark Katz.
The Guide, the first book of its kind in Canada, will be a practical and concise summary of Canadian competition law as it applies to trade, professional and other associations. It will include an overview of the major areas of Canadian competition law that apply to associations, including the conspiracy, bid-rigging, abuse of dominance and misleading advertising provisions of the federal Competition Act.
The Guide will also include discussions of some of the specific types of association activities that can raise competition law concerns including membership criteria and discipline, codes of conduct and standard setting, meetings and information exchanges and joint association activities (e.g., joint negotiation and marketing, joint purchasing activities and lobbying and advocacy). A compendium of “best practices” (i.e., do’s and don’ts) will also be provided together with sample guidelines for the conduct of association meetings, document creation and responding to government investigations (principally search and seizures). Basic sample association compliance presentations for associations will also be included.
The Guide is intended to provide a practical resource for trade and professional association executives, their personnel and counsel to better understand Canadian competition law as it applies to association activities and to assist them in anticipating and reducing potential competition law liability.
For more information about this forthcoming book see Carswell’s product catalogue:
The Competition Law Guide for Trade Associations in Canada
Carswell will also be offering an online webinar in November in conjunction with the publication of the Guide. For more information see:
West LegalEdcenter – A Guide to Canadian Competition Law for Trade and other Associations
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
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:
BCREA – Instructor Development Workshop
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
In a significant recent decision by the federal Competition Tribunal, the Tribunal granted leave to the Used Car Dealers Association of Ontario (the “UCDA”) to make a section 75 refusal to deal application relating to a refusal by the Insurance Bureau of Canada (the “IBC”) to supply data to it for one of its products for its members.
This recent case, reasons for which were issued on September 9, 2011, is significant, in that the UCDA was seeking leave to make its refusal to deal application in light of a longstanding adverse decision – the Warner music case.
(Leave from the Tribunal is a prerequisite to making refusal to deal applications to the Competition Tribunal, as well as private applications under the price maintenance (section 76) and exclusive dealing/tied selling/market restriction sections (under section 77).)
In its earlier Warner decision, the Tribunal held that licenses to use and reproduce intellectual property (music in Warner) was not a “product” for section 75 of the Competition Act and also that a license could not be in “ample supply” (two of a number of requirements under section 75), given that a license holder has a right under intellectual property legislation (e.g., the Copyright Act) to decide whether or not to license its IP to third parties.
In light of Warner, it has generally been thought that refusals to license intellectual property could not be the subject of refusal to deal applications under section 75 (or at minimum, that arguments would need to be made as to why Warner should not apply to a particular case, and that this could reduce the likelihood of success of section 75 applications in the context of intellectual property refusals to deal).
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