Archive for the 'Associations' Category
Earlier today, the Retail Council of Canada (RCC) issued a news release and its submission to the Standing Committee on National Finance regarding retail pricing in Canada. The Committee commenced a study of the reasons for price differences in Canada and the United States last fall, and has heard from a wide spectrum of witnesses, including from government (the Competition Bureau, Canadian Heritage, Transport Canada, CBSA and Department of Finance), the private sector, academics and industry associations and groups.
In addressing the Committee, the RCC’s President Diane Brisebois urged them to “help set the record straight about the real causes of price differences in Canada versus the United States”.
According to the RCC, Canadian retailers are confronted by the following factors that impact retail pricing in Canada: (i) import duties on finished goods, (ii) supply management affecting food product prices (i.e., marketing boards that impact the prices of dairy, poultry and other products), (iii) vendor pricing (i.e., higher prices for Canadian retailers) and (iv) regulatory harmonization (e.g., in the book industry, in relation to which the RCC said Canada was the “poster child” for regulation leading to higher book prices). The RCC particularly emphasized existing “outdated” tariffs for adversely impacting Canadian retail prices.
The RCC’s submission discusses, among other things, the Canadian retail industry and suggested areas for government action (in relation to country pricing, duty remission on imported consumer goods, supply management and regulatory harmonization/red tape reduction).
Interestingly, the RCC did not address any competition or marketplace concentration issues in its submission, which is interesting given the high level of consolidation in many Canadian industries (including in some retail segments), except to comment on increased foreign competition:
In an interesting recent note, Jones Day has commented on a recent FTC administrative action against three of the largest U.S. suppliers of ductile iron pipe fittings (DIPF) alleging that they engaged in price-fixing and other anticompetitive behaviour. In connection with this case, the FTC has published a proposed consent order for public comment to resolve claims that one supplier, Star, violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by engaging in price fixing.
The case is interesting in that the FTC’s complaint alleges that two of the suppliers, McWane and Sigma, invited the third, Star, to collude by communicating through a letter to common customers. The FTC also alleges that the suppliers utilized an industry trade association (the Ductile Iron Fittings Research Association) to exchange sales information to monitor and enforce the parties’ alleged agreement.
The FTC’s proposed consent order would prohibit Star from: (i) agreeing to fix, raise or stabilize DIPF prices (or allocate markets, customers or business opportunities for DIPF), (ii) soliciting any competitor to participate in such anti-competitive conduct or (iii) participate in any agreement between competitors to exchange competitively sensitive information (e.g., sales information).
In Canada, while there is no express provision in the Competition Act exclusively governing information exchanges, the principal risk of such exchanges between competitors is that they can lead to agreements (e.g., price-fixing agreements) that violate the criminal conspiracy provisions of the Competition Act (section 45). Such information can include prices, costs, customers, suppliers, markets, market shares and business and strategic plans.
Information exchanges can also be relevant in establishing the existence of an illegal agreement under section 45 (i.e., be used by the Bureau, a court or a private plaintiff to infer the existence of an agreement that violates section 45).
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives recently published a paper endorsing a new national security test for proposed foreign takeovers of Canadian companies entitled “Chinese Foreign Direct Investment in Canada: Threat or Opportunity”.
According to the author, Dr. Moran, a professor of international business and finance at Georgetown University, the majority of proposed foreign acquisitions “pose no plausible threat whatsoever” to national security.
From the CCCE:
“In today’s report, Dr. Moran considers two issues of central interest to Canada as Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) grows to be a major force in the global economy: how does Chinese FDI affect the structure of natural resource industries around the world?; and when does the foreign acquisition of an existing firm constitute a national security threat to that firm’s home country?
On the first question, Dr. Moran rejects the suggestion that Chinese investments in the natural resource sector have the effect of “locking up” the world’s resource base. On the contrary, a review of several dozen recent Chinese acquisitions and procurement arrangements shows that most of them actually help to expand and diversify resource production and increase competition within the affected industry.
As to whether a given foreign takeover poses a risk to national security, Dr. Moran recommends the adoption of a new threat-assessment framework based on three distinct categories of undesirable foreign acquisitions: takeovers that would render the home country dependent on a foreign-controlled supplier that might deny or place limits on the provision of goods or services crucial to the functioning of the home economy; takeovers that would allow the transfer into foreign hands of technology or expertise that might be deployed in a manner harmful to the home country’s interests; takeovers that would give the new owner’s government, or some other hostile force, a platform for espionage, surveillance or sabotage, through the provision of goods or services crucial to the functioning of the home economy.
Acquisitions that fall into any of those three categories can legitimately be rejected on national security grounds, Dr. Moran says. However, that accounts for only a small percentage of proposed foreign takeovers. The rest, he says, may or may not deserve to be blocked on other grounds, but cannot fairly be considered threats to national security.
The adoption of this three-part threat assessment framework by Canada – and other countries – would “help to dampen politicization of individual cases, enabling swift and confident approval of those acquisitions from which genuine national security threats are absent,” Dr. Moran says. The entire international economic system would benefit, he argues, if OECD countries – and non-OECD countries such as China and India – were to accept this common threat assessment methodology.”
In March, 2009, amendments to the Canadian Investment Canada Act (“ICA”) introduced a new national security review mechanism, under which the Minister and Federal Cabinet have the power to review proposed or completed investments that may be “injurious to national security” in Canada. This relatively new national security review regime, which is distinct and administered separately from the general “net benefit” to Canada foreign investment test under the ICA, arose as a result of recommendations made by the Competition Policy Review Panel in its report entitled Compete to Win (which preceded significant amendments to Canada’s competition and foreign investment laws in 2009 and 2010).
Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) will be holding a breakfast seminar on Thursday May 3, 2012 (8:30 – 10:15 at the Sutton Place Hotel in Toronto) entitled “Tell the Truth: Honesty is Your Most Powerful Marketing Tool”, with keynote speaker Jonathan Salem.
From the ASC:
“According to Baskin, today’s consumers aren’t looking for conversations with brands as much as about brands. And what they take away from this engagement is far more important than the creative ways marketers deliver messages. Ultimately, consumers determine what is true, and smart companies have realized that every communications medium, especially peer-to-peer online conversations, can and will be used to contribute to their conclusions.
Baskin and his co-author conducted in-depth research on 50 companies to produce case histories about how truthful brands deliver sales, profits, and sustainable relationships. The bottom line is that truthful brands are the most profitable and successful, making truth telling the strategic and creative challenge of the 21st century.”
Yesterday was a banner day for the European Commission, which imposed a total of €255 million against parties in the freight forwarders and window mountings cartels.
In the freight forwarders cartel, the Commission fined 14 international groups of companies a total of €169 million for participating in four cartels between 2002 and 2007 to fix the prices and other trading conditions for international freight forwarding services.
Interestingly, the parties in this case took rather elaborate and colourful steps to conceal the cartel, organizing their contacts in a so-called “Gardening Club” and using code-names based on vegetables (e.g., asparagus and baby courgettes) when the parties talked about fixing prices. The parties also set up a specific Yahoo e-mail account to facilitate the cartel and information exchanges between them.
The Canadian Law and Economics Association has announced a call for papers for its next Annual Meeting on September 28 and 29, 2012. The deadline for submission of papers is July 1, 2012.
From the Canadian Law and Economics Association:
“You are invited to submit a paper for presentation at the next Annual Meeting of the Canadian Law and Economics Association to be held on Friday and Saturday, September 28 and 29, at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. Professor Richard A. Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, will deliver the Jim Tory Law and Economics Public Lecture on, “Rate Regulation and Network Industries,” as well a keynote address at dinner on the same topic. As in past years, we are soliciting papers in all areas of law and economics.”
The National Competition Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association has announced a call for submissions for its annual James H. Bocking Memorial Award.
From the CBA:
“The CBA National Competition Law Section James H. Bocking Award was established by the National Competition Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association to honour annually the best scholarly paper submitted to the Section on a subject relating directly to Canadian competition law or policy.”
The Victoria Real Estate Board will be holding a competition law course for its members – “Competition Law and REALTORS®: What You Say and Do Matters” – on Monday March 19th.
About this course:
“Competition Law and REALTORS®: What You Say and Do Matters was designed by ACRE with the assistance of CREA to help Canadian REALTORS® understand and comply with Canadian competition law. While Canadian competition law applies to all real estate professionals, this course was designed specifically for REALTORS®. This course provides an overview in plain language of Canadian competition law and practical compliance guidelines to assist REALTORS® in complying with Canadian competition law and a number of illustrative case studies. This national competition law course is available to members of Canadian real estate boards and associations.”
This course will be instructed by Steve Szentesi.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
