Archive for the 'Associations' Category
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
The Toronto Sun has reported that the federal Competition Bureau has commenced an investigation into alleged price-fixing activities among concrete companies in the Greater Toronto Area home-building industry.
According to the Bureau, it is investigating businesses in the residential concrete forming industry in the Greater Toronto Area (companies that create basement foundations for residential homes). In addition to contractors, the allegations appear to include a trade association, the Residential Low Rise Forming Contractors Association of Metropolitan Toronto and Vicinity (the LRFA). Also according to Bureau officials, criminal searches have been conducted in the Toronto area.
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 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).
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 others.
Howard Ullman (mydistributionlaw.com) has written a rather good note on “The ‘top fives’ Concerning Antitrust Compliance Progams” (reprinted with permission).
Given the stepped up enforcement in Canada over the past few years, and the close parallels in enforcement priorities between Canada and the U.S., I thought this was a rather good note to post.
For an overview of competition law compliance in Canada please see our competition law compliance overview: Competition Compliance.
The “Top Fives” Concerning Antitrust Compliance Programs
There are a number of lengthy articles about antitrust compliance programs. This quick post will give you short answers to three questions: (i) why should you have a compliance program? (ii) what features should a program have? and (iii) what red flags should you look for when auditing or reviewing compliance?
Top Five Reasons to Have a Compliance Program
1. It’s the right thing to do, isn’t it? Integrity is important to virtually all businesses.
2. It may help avoid a substantial problem and subsequent expensive litigation.
3. In the criminal price-fixing or bid-rigging context, under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (2011), a corporation’s “culpability score” (used to calculate a criminal fine) can be reduced if it had in place an effective compliance and ethics program. To qualify, among other things, those with operational responsibility for the program should have direct reporting obligations to the “governing authority” (i.e., a corporate board) or an appropriate subgroup. (Note, though, that when the Justice Department uses non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements in criminal cases, and in other civil settlements, it may not consider effective compliance programs. In fact, the DOJ takes the public position that if a company is a criminal antitrust defendant or potential defendant, its compliance program must have failed and the company deserves no credit for it. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in some cases, though, the DOJ gives private consideration to companies which are essentially victimized by rogue employees and which have compliance programs.).
4. Having a compliance program is a good excuse to rationalize your pricing and distribution system.
5. Some governmental customers require programs as a condition of doing business with them.
A few interesting competition and regulatory law developments caught my eye today including:
The Federal Privacy Commissioner announced that she would be tabling the annual PIPEDA Report in Parliament tomorrow: Media Advisory – Commissioner’s annual report on private-sector privacy issues expected to be tabled in Parliament, Privacy Commissioner news release.
Late last week the Federal Attorney General appointed a new Competition Bureau Chairman: Competition Tribunal Appointment Announced.
Gus Van Harten of Osgoode Hall Law School has published an interesting, if critical, note on Canada’s foreign investment rules (thanks to our friend Harpinder Mangat at Carswell who Tweeted this): Not all foreign takeovers are good for Canada.
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) recently launched a new initiative entitled “Canada in the Pacific Century” which will include the publication of papers and a conference in Ottawa from September 24-25, 2012.
According to the CCCE, this Canada/Asia initiative is intended to: identify and promote key policy solutions that would enhance Canada’s ability to succeed in a transforming global economy; raise awareness among Canadians of the significance of Asia’s growing economic power and influence; and improve Canadians’ understanding of the resulting challenges and opportunities for Canadians.
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) and Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) have issued a joint statement and two reports that recommend a range of policy measures to increase and promote bilateral trade and investment between Canada and Australia.
In making the announcement, the CCCE said:
“In recent years there has been a significant expansion in two-way investment between Australia and Canada, particularly in the natural resources and financial sectors. In view of that, and given Canada’s interest in joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations (TPP), the two business organisations concluded that both countries would benefit from a better understanding of the potential for enhanced trade and investment.”
The proposed changes include eliminating tariffs on bilateral trade, improving labour mobility, a bilateral agreement for reciprocal treatment under Canadian and Australian foreign investment review systems and exploring the development of a bilateral competition policy framework that would replace anti-dumping actions.
For the CCCE’s and Ai’s news releases, joint statement and reports see:
Yesterday, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) published a new report on the competitiveness of Canadian agricultural processors in global markets and in particular Asia, entitled: Golden Opportunities and Surmountable Challenges: Prospects for Canadian Agriculture in Asia.
From the CCCE:
“Canada’s agri-food sector has the potential to become a growth engine for the entire economy if the federal government moves quickly to negotiate preferential trade agreements with fast-rising Asian markets, a new report concludes.
‘The rise of China, India and other emerging markets has dramatically changed the outlook for Canadian farmers and agricultural processors,’ says Michael Gifford, Canada’s former chief agricultural trade negotiator and the author of the report. … Mr. Gifford’s paper is the fourth in a series of reports commissioned by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) to explore the impact on Canada of Asia’s growing economic power. …
Mr. Gifford notes that, for decades, Canada’s agri-food sector has struggled with boom-and-bust cycles, frequent surpluses and low farm incomes. As in many other industrialized countries, agricultural production increased rapidly in the second half of the 20th century, outstripping population growth.
However, the rise of China, India and other emerging markets is driving major changes in the global agri-food market. Across Asia, rapid urbanization and income growth are contributing to an unprecedented expansion in the number of middle class consumers, and a consequent increase in demand for meats, vegetable oils, dairy products, fruits and sugar as well as processed food and restaurant meals.
All of this augurs well for countries such as Canada that are net agricultural exporters, Mr. Gifford says. ‘Asia’s expanding appetite for imported food provides Canadian agricultural producers with golden opportunities to grow and prosper – provided that the federal and provincial governments and industry work together to identify and overcome a variety of external and internal challenges.’”
The International Competition Network’s (ICN) 2012 Annual Conference has wrapped up and the ICN has posted copies of the papers, chapters and other conference materials including in relation to the ICN’s Advocacy, Cartel, Mergers and Unilateral Working Groups.
Canada-related materials include a summary of the Canadian Competition Bureau’s information sharing mechanisms (see: Cartel Working Group – Charts Summarizing Information Sharing Mechanisms) and discussions of some of the Bureau’s criminal enforcement efforts (see: Cartel Working Group – Anti-Cartel Enforcement Manual).
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
