Archive for the 'Compliance' Category
On June 21, 2012 the Competition Bureau announced that, together with the Unité permanente anticorruption (UPAC) in Quebec, it has laid 77 charges against 11 individuals and 9 companies in relation to a broad range of allegations that include corruption in municipal affairs, breach of trust, influencing municipal officers, fraud upon the government, production and use of counterfeit documents, accepting reward, advance or benefit, extortion and conspiracy.
With respect to allegations of competition law violations, the Bureau has announced that bid-rigging charges were also laid under section 47 of the Competition Act.
According to the Bureau, this newly announced case is the result of an investigation that ran for more than two years, which uncovered “evidence of a sophisticated collusion scheme giving preferential treatment to a group of contractors to obtain municipal contracts, mainly for infrastructure projects in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and surrounding areas.”
Under section 45 of the Competition Act (the criminal conspiracy offences of the Act) three types of agreements between competitors are “per se” illegal (i.e., with no adverse competitive impacts required to be proven): (i) price-fixing agreements (agreements to fix, maintain, increase or control the price for the supply of a product or service), (ii) market allocation/division agreements (agreements to allocate sales, territories, customers or markets for the production or supply of a product) and (iii) output/supply restriction agreements (agreements to fix, maintain, control, prevent, lessen or eliminate the production or supply of a product). Other types of agreements between competitors are potentially subject to review under a second and separate non-criminal reviewable matters agreement provision (section 90.1).
In addition to these conspiracy offences, the Competition Act (somewhat in contrast to, for example, the U.S. where bid-rigging is challenged under Section 1 of the Sherman Act together with other types of cartels, such as price-fixing or market division arrangements) also contains stand-alone bid-rigging offences (under section 47 of the Act).
In this regard, section 47 of the Act makes it a criminal offence to: (i) agree to not submit a bid or tender, (ii) agree to withdraw a bid or tender already submitted (recently added to the Act as a result of the 2009 amendments) or (iii) submit a bid or tender that is arrived at by agreement. Bid-rigging in Canada is also, like the amended section 45, ”per se” illegal, in that no anti-competitive effects on a relevant market (or markets) need to be established in order to make out an offence (though all of the elements need to be established on the standard criminal burden of proof – i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt).
Some common types of coordinated bidding activities that can contravene the criminal bid-rigging provisions of the Act include: “cover”, “courtesy” or “complementary” bidding (some firms submit bids that are too high to be accepted, or with terms that are unacceptable to the party calling for bids, to protect an agreed upon low bidder); “bid suppression” (one or more bidders that would otherwise bid agree to refrain from bidding or withdraw a previously made bid); “bid rotation” (all parties submit bids but take turns being the low bidder according to a systematic or rotating basis); “market division” (suppliers agree not to compete in designated geographic areas or for specified customers); and “subcontracting” (parties that agree not to submit a bid, or submit a losing bid, are awarded subcontracts or supply agreements from the successful low bidder. Trade association activities involving information exchanges about upcoming or proposed tender opportunities, or that facilitate coordination of bids and tenders, can also raise competition law concerns.
Companies and other organizations, such as trade and professional associations, may exchange information for a wide range of legitimate and pro-competitive purposes. These may include industry research, benchmarking, joint ventures or other business or strategic alliances or in the context of merger negotiations.
Indeed, the exchange of information between companies or association members can have many pro-competitive purposes and effects – for example, facilitating research or production initiatives that would be impossible without cooperation, increasing market transparency and consumer knowledge, leading to enhanced products and services or supporting lobbying and industry advocacy efforts. In this regard, competition enforcement officials, both in Canada and other major jurisdictions, generally acknowledge that markets operate more efficiently when information is relatively free and openly available to industry members.
Having said that, information exchanges – that is the exchange of certain types of competitively sensitive information between competitors, such as price, cost, market, market share, customer, supplier or business or strategic plan information – can represent a significant risk for companies, trade or professional association members (as well as their management and boards) and merging or joint venture partners.
Generally speaking, the exchange of competitively sensitive information between competitors can dampen competitive rivalry by reducing competitors’ uncertainty about their rivals’ competitive and commercial responses. More specifically, the exchange of competitively sensitive information between competitors can raise significant competition law risk under the Competition Act (the “Act”).
In Canada, the principal risk of information exchanges between competitors is that they can lead to agreements that violate section 45 of the Act, which makes it a criminal offence for competitors (or potential competitors) to enter into agreements to fix prices, divide markets or restrict output. Potential penalites under section 45 include criminal fines of up to $25 million (per count), imprisonment or up to 14 years and damages arising from civil actions.
While section 45 does not criminalize information exchanges themselves, the risk of such exchanges between competitors, without appropriate safeguards, is two-fold: first, exchanging (or discussing) competitively sensitive information may result in an agreement that contravenes section 45 (e.g., a price-fixing agreement); and second, an information exchange may be used by a court, the Competition Bureau or a private plaintiff to infer the existence of an agreement that violates section 45 (i.e., be used as “circumstantial” evidence of the existence of an agreement).
Canadian courts have relied on evidence of information exchanges as one basis to conclude that an illegal conspiracy existed and such exchanges are commonly relied on in criminal and civil proceedings in Canada under section 45. Information exchanges have sometimes involved conduct as seemingly straightforward as the discussion of prices at association meetings and in one older, but noteworthy, case, an attempt by industry members to adopt an “open pricing” policy (by exchanging price information with no express agreement to follow the exchanged rates) without contravening section 45.
Steve Szentesi & Mark Katz
(First published in Competition Policy International, Antitrust Chronicle)
“As a result of this alleged conspiracy, we believe that consumers paid millions of dollars more for some of the most popular titles. We allege that executives at the highest levels of these companies—concerned that e-book sellers had reduced prices—worked together to eliminate competition among stores selling e-books, ultimately increasing prices for consumers.”
(Attorney General Eric Holder, April 11, 2012)
“This was competition on the merits, with Apple providing a superior reading platform on a beautiful 10 inch iPad screen, with color, multi-media, and fixed display, and access to millions of future iPad purchasers. This is classic procompetitive behavior that should be celebrated, not condemned through litigation.”
(Apple Answer, May 22, 2012)
“Absent any direct evidence of conspiracy, the Government’s Complaint is necessarily based entirely on the little circumstantial evidence it was able to locate during its extensive investigation, on which it piles innuendo on top of innuendo, stretches facts and implies actions that did not occur and which Macmillan denies unequivocally. For the record, Macmillan did not conspire with other publishers in New York City restaurants.”
(Macmillan Answer, May 29, 2012)
INTRODUCTION
Before the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed its claim in the eBooks case earlier this year, Canadian class action plaintiffs commenced their own proceedings in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec.[1]
As in the United States, the Canadian actions are challenging the agency eBook distribution model adopted by Apple and five of the world’s largest book publishers.[2] Specifically, the Canadian plaintiffs allege that Apple and the defendant publishers violated Canada’s price-fixing offense under section 45 of the Competition Act (the “Act”). The publishers allegedly committed the offense by collectively agreeing to discontinue their former wholesale distribution models, under which publishers sold eBooks at wholesale prices to distributors who in turn set retail prices, for a new agency model under which publishers set prices with distributors receiving sales commissions.[3]
The Canadian plaintiffs also allege that the publisher defendants illegally agreed not to set eBook prices below Apple’s iBookstore prices (a “most-favored-nation” provision). Finally, the plaintiffs plead a variety of non-statutory grounds for recovery, including certain common law torts (e.g., unlawful interference with economic relations) and—in Québec—claims under the Civil Code of Québec.[4]
As in the United States, the key substantive issue in Canada will be whether the conduct of Apple and the defendant publishers constitutes an illegal conspiracy. In addition, the case raises some uniquely Canadian issues relating to jurisdiction and certification and the interpretation of Canada’s conspiracy offense.
Before addressing these various questions, we provide a brief summary of the competition class action regime in Canada for background purposes.
I am pleased to be delivering the Competition Law and REALTORS course for the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver on Monday, June 18th. This course is available to members of Canadian real estate boards. From the Alliance for Canadian Real Estate Education:
“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.”
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
A few interesting competition, advertising and regulatory law developments caught my eye today including:
The Competition Bureau published its May Report of Concluded Merger Reviews including Glencore/Viterra (3 advance ruling certificates and 16 no action letters): Monthly Report of Concluded Merger Reviews – May.
The ABA, Antitrust Section has launched new e-book: Handbook of U.S. Antitrust Sources: ABA – Handbook of U.S. Antitrust Sources.
Canadian Lawyer Magazine published a rather good article on corporate anti-corruption policies (which caught my eye given our work in the competition law compliance program area): Why Boards Need to Pay More Attention to Anti-Corruption Policies.
The CBA is offering an advertising law compliance seminar on June 19th entitled “Truth in Advertising 101: Tips for In-House Counsel”. For registration information see: Truth in Advertising 101: Tips for In-House Counsel.
The Canadian Real Estate Association, together with its U.S. counterpart the National Association of REALTORS, are making a play for the Top Level Domain (TLD) .REALTOR for their members: The Canadian Real Estate Association Partners with the National Association of REALTORS in its Application for .REALTOR Top Level Domain Extension.
The Globe has reported on a Wal-Mart review of the world’s greatest corruption risk jurisdictions (Brazil, China, India, South Africa and Mexico): Wal-Mart Bribery Review Flags Brazil and China as Corruption Risks.
The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) published its May 2012 Connections newsletter (featuring advocacy news and BCREA’s government relations activities) with updates on disclosure and remediation for properties used in drug operations, new legislation to help solve strata disputes and information for REALTORS for the move back to the PST: BCREA – Connections – May 2012.
Constantine Cannon has written an interesting note on the recent National Football League Players Association collusion claim against the NFL, its clubs and team owners alleging a concerted arrangement for a $123 million per-Club salary cap for the 2010 season: Players Charge NFL Imposed Collusive Salary Cap.
The 1709 Blog posted an interesting update on French publishers’ settlement with Google in the Google Book Search Project case: Some French Fresh Air to the Google Books Project.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
Tatiana Chabeaux-Smith
(Consumer Protection BC – reprinted with permission)
We have all had that knock at the door. You are usually just sitting down to dinner or are up to your elbows in dish water. You answer the door to find someone “just happens to be in the area” and has extra material for paving your driveway, has a ladder handy to wash your windows, or has a vacuum that you just have to hear about. We often feel hesitation around starting a conversation with a door-to-door sales person but we do it anyway because we want to be polite. And then we don’t know how to end the conversation.
Don’t get us wrong, there are many legitimate businesses that use door-to-door sales as a marketing approach and who won’t pressure you into buying. But as a consumer, it’s hard to know how to say no or how to recognize potential scams.
If someone comes to your door selling you a product or service, try to remember that you did not invite them – they approached you. You are not obligated to enter into a contract with them nor are you required to spend your valuable time listening to a high-pressure sales tactic.
Here are some tips to help you if you find yourself in a door-to-door sales situation:
1. Ask for credentials and including ID and proof of who they are working for.
2. Ask for time to think about the offer. It’s always a good idea to think things over to see if you really need the product or service.
CANADIAN CONTEST RULES/PRECEDENTS
Do you need contest rules/precedents
for a Canadian contest?
We offer many types of Canadian contest/sweepstakes law precedents and forms (i.e., Canadian contest/sweepstakes law precedents to run common types of contests in Canada). These include precedents for random draw contests (i.e., where winners are chosen by random draw), skill contests (e.g., essay, photo or other types of contests where entrants submit content that is judged to enter the contest or for additional entries), trip contests and more. Also available are individual Canadian contest/sweepstakes precedents, including short rules (“mini-rules”), long rules, winner releases and a Canadian contest law checklist. For more information or to order, see: Canadian Contest Law Forms/Precedents. If you would like to discuss legal advice in relation to your contest or other promotion, contact us: Contact.
********************
Promotional contests in Canada are largely governed by the Competition Act, the Criminal Code, privacy legislation and the common law of contract. In addition, Quebec has a separate regulatory regime governing contests and contest authority (the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux). Canadian federal anti-spam law (CASL) also commonly applies to contests run in Canada (see below).
A few interesting regulatory law developments caught my eye today including:
Stanford University Press has published a new book entitled The Global Limits of Competition Law, edited by Daniel Sokol and Ioannis Lianos: Stanford University Press – The Global Limits of Competition Law.
The American Antitrust Institute has published a new global handbook on private competition law enforcement entitled The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law: Edward Elgar Publishing – The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law.
The Federal Government has introduced a new Safe Food for Canadians Act: Harper Government Introduces Safe Food for Canadians Act.
The Federal Privacy Commissioner yesterday issued a new policy position on online behavioural advertising: Policy Position on Online Behavioural Advertising.
The New York Times published an interesting Barnes & Noble Op Ed arguing that the settlement with e-book publishers would “punish consumers”: Barnes & Noble Argues Book Settlement “Punishes Consumers”.
The Australian competition regulator (the ACCC) has approved the Glencore/Viterra transaction: Australia Competition Watchdog Approves Glencore Takeover of Viterra.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
