Archive for the 'Conspiracy' Category
December 13, 2012
The Criminal Matters Committee and the Young Lawyers Committee of the Canadian Bar Association’s National Competition Law Section are presenting an upcoming conference (and teleconference) entitled “A Primer of Immunity and Leniency in Criminal Competition Practice”. This conference/teleconference is to be held on January 17, 2013 from 12:30 – 2:00 pm (Toronto time).
Overview from the CBA:
“Canada’s Competition Bureau has consistently cited effective immunity and leniency programs as the most productive means of discovering and prosecuting cartel behaviour. As these programs continue to play an increasingly vital role in the Canadian legal landscape, both new and experienced practitioners alike must stay current on the latest developments and ensure that they understand the key issues. Please join our distinguished panelists for an informative discussion from the perspectives of both the Competition Bureau and the private bar.”
December 5, 2012
In interesting and wide ranging comments given earlier today in Vancouver, as a prelude to published remarks, the Interim Commissioner of Competition John Pecman discussed current Bureau priorities, some key enforcement trends and gave some indication of future policy direction at the Bureau.
Perhaps appropriately, the Interim Commissioner began his remarks by noting that today, December 5th, has been designated by the Indian based NGO CUTS International as “world competition day” (with this year’s topic being designated by CUTS as the impact of cartels on the world’s poor).
Some highlights from the Interim Commissioner’s remarks included:
Enforcement. An overarching theme of today’s discussion in Vancouver was a continued focus on enforcement and an unwavering willingness by the Bureau to commence litigation (though underscored throughout the talk by a message that the Bureau continues to be interested in collaboration and dialogue). While the Interim Commissioner said that the Bureau’s default is generally to work collaboratively, the Bureau will continue not to hesitate to litigate. The Interim Commissioner also spoke about a desire to return to some of the “bread and butter” priorities of the Bureau in both the criminal and deceptive marketing areas. Interestingly, the Interim Commissioner indicated that despite recent Federal budgetary cuts, the Bureau was working toward enhancing its internal litigation capabilities.
Consultations & New Guidelines. The Interim Commissioner indicated that the Bureau would be commencing consultations with the competition bar in Canada in the new-year, as well as stakeholders, business groups and procurement groups to amplify and clarify several key areas, including the Bureau’s Immunity and Leniency Programs and electronic document production. The Interim Commissioner also indicated that the Bureau would be working towards issuing new price maintenance guidelines, FAQs for unilateral conduct and new general guidelines on Bureau enforcement. The Interim Commissioner also suggested a desire by the Bureau to move away from issuing advisory opinions in individual cases toward a focus on published materials (i.e., guidelines).
Maxzone. With respect to the recent decision by Chief Justice Crampton in the Maxzone case, the Interim Commissioner indicated that the decision both sends a strong message that serious white-collar crime conduct akin to fraud should be appropriately punished (including by increasing recommendations for prison sentences) while other aspects of the decision were less workable practically, for example Chief Justice Crampton’s suggestion that defendants should work to achieve restitution with plaintiffs prior to plea agreements (which can delay criminal investigations). In this regard, the Interim Commissioner commented on the existing partition between private actions and criminal enforcement, saying there already existed a mechanism for restitution (section 36 of the Competition Act – the provision under which private civil actions in Canada are commenced). Overall, however, Mr. Pecman described the ongoing shift of Canadian courts toward sterner sentencing and recent Criminal Code sentencing amendments eliminating conditional sentences for cartel and bid-rigging offences as a “sea change” to how competition law offences are treated in Canada.
November 24, 2012
Competition/antitrust law penalties in Canada, of course, do not compare to the magnitude of those in the EU or U.S. (where fines can reach hundreds of millions of dollars or Euros).
Having said that, given that 2012 is drawing to a close, I was curious what the fines in Canada have been over the past year. In this regard, though not exhaustive, the following is a brief tiptoe through the cartel, bid-rigging and misleading advertising fine landscape in the last year in Canada:
$12.5 million – Two companies sentenced in relation to a price-fixing cartel for polyurethane foam (January, 2012) (see: here).
$9 million – Five companies and three individuals held to have violated the misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act (March 2, 2012) (see: here).
$5.5 million – An airline sentenced in relation to an international air cargo price-fixing cartel (July 19, 2012) (see: here).
$2 million – Three companies sentenced in relation to a gas price-fixing conspiracy in Kingston and Brockville, Ontario (March, 2012) (see: here).
$1.5 million – A company sentenced in relation to a price-fixing conspiracy in the aftermarket automotive lights market; part of the ongoing global auto parts cartel investigation (May, 2012) (see: here).
$500,000 – A company sentenced in relation to a gas price-fixing conspiracy in Belleville, Ontario (April 13, 2012) (see: here).
$125,000 – A company sentenced in relation to a bid-rigging cartel for federal government contracts (July 30, 2012) (see: here).
November 20, 2012
Earlier today, the Canadian Department of Justice announced that the final provisions of its omnibus crime bill, the Federal Safe Streets and Communities Act, eliminating conditional sentences for some serious crimes have come into force. In making the announcement, Canada’s Federal Attorney General said:
“’Our Government has a strong record of putting victims first, getting tough on serious and violent offenders, and keeping our streets and communities safe’ … ‘House arrest should not be available for offenders of serious crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping, and human trafficking. Those who commit these violent crimes must serve their time behind bars, not in the comfort of their homes and that is exactly the issue this legislation corrects.’”
On March 13, 2012, amendments to section 742.1 of the Criminal Code (the “Code”), which were part of the Federal Government’s omnibus crime bill (Bill C-10), received Royal Assent. The changes also restrict the availability of conditional sentences for some Competition Act offences.
In particular, where a person is convicted of an offence and a court imposes a sentence of less than two years, the court may impose a conditional sentence (i.e., served in the community), except in certain circumstances. These now include where an offence is an indictable offence with a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years or life, which includes sections 45 and 47 of the Competition Act (conspiracy agreements and bid-rigging), as well as manslaughter, aggravated assault, arson and fraud over $5,000.
Other offences for which conditional sentences will not be available also include the following offences when prosecuted by indictment: prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, theft over $5,000 and motor vehicle theft.
November 18, 2012
On Friday, the Ottawa Citizen reported that Public Works has toughened its integrity rules, with the result that CRG Consulting (which pleaded guilty to criminal bid-rigging in July) has been banned from bidding on future Public Works contracts. According to Public Works it “… will not enter into a contract or real property transaction, or accept bids from companies convicted of listed offences (such as bid-rigging) unless they have received a pardon.”
This recent public procurement development means that the risk of non-compliance for firms bidding for public sector contracts has now been raised further, in addition to other recent criminal competition law developments that include the elimination of conditional sentences (i.e., sentences served in the community) for some Competition Act offences, a recent Federal Court decision in the Maxzone case (see: here) indicating that the Federal Court will take a tougher stance on joint sentencing submissions in cartel cases, bid-rigging being an ongoing enforcement priority for the Competition Bureau and the continuing corruption/competition probe in the construction industry in Quebec. As such, the potential risk of engaging in bid-rigging or other criminal conduct under the Competition Act is now not only fines and/or imprisonment but also the possible loss of public sector clients.
November 14, 2012
When companies think about competition law compliance, the focus is often on senior management and board compliance – that is, ensuring that the board, and a firm’s directors and officers, have a clear understanding of competition law rules. That is not to say that it is not well known that managers, and in particular a company’s sales force, are often at the center of competition/antitrust issues. Practically, however, companies often approach compliance from the top down with an expectation that senior management will disseminate the compliance message down through an organization. Sometimes that is the case. In more cases, however, it seems that it is not – as is evidenced by the Competition Bureau’s perennial complaint that many companies have compliance programs, but fail to effectively implement them.
In this regard, a recent U.K. paper caught my eye on the role of marketing managers in global cartels entitled “The Role of Sales and Marketing Managers Within International Cartels” (J.K. Ashton & A.D. Pressey).
This study looked at 56 major international cartels investigated by the European Union with findings that include the fact that marketing and sales managers have been involved in a substantial percentage of cartels (42.9%), are seldom the most senior managers, tended to involve global cartels (in manufacturing more than distribution industries) and involved information exchanges in the context of predominantly market allocation and price-fixing arrangements.
Interestingly, this study also looks at some of the strategies cartels have used to avoid detection (including minimizing meetings, punishing “cheating” and more levels of organizational hierarchy – i.e., buffers between marketing personnel and senior management), marketing managers’ involvement in trade associations and statistics of U.S. incarceration of foreign nationals and the reliance of whistle blowers in investigations.
Abstract:
“Although the study of international cartels has a considerable lineage our understanding of their organization, operation and management remains limited. This study attends to this omission through examining the role of marketing and sales managers within international cartels using a content analysis of 56 major international price-fixing cartels over two decades (1990-2009). It is reported that marketing and sales managers are demonstrably involved in many international cartels (42.9% of all cartel cases), albeit often accompanied by more senior managers from other firm functions. Marketing and sales managers appear most frequently within worldwide and manufacturing industry cartels and where market allocation and customer-sharing practices occur. In light of these findings it is important to reassess both managerial attitudes towards inter-firm collaborations and enhance the position of antitrust concerns within business school syllabi.”
For a copy of the paper see: Who Manages Cartels? The Role of Sales and Marketing Managers within International Cartels.
__________________
For more information about our regulatory services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
November 11, 2012
In an interesting note earlier today, the National Post reported (from The Canadian Press) that the federal Competition Bureau was working with Quebec’s corruption unit in the ongoing Quebec corruption and competition investigation which has so far led to the resignations of the mayors of Montreal and Laval and involved testimony that working in this area for some years now I can only describe as astonishing.
The articles published earlier today confirmed that the Bureau is working with Quebec’s provincial anti-corruption authorities in relation to a number of cartel and bid-rigging cases under investigation in Quebec (which was also recently confirmed by the Acting Senior Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Criminal Matters Branch, Matthew Boswell in recent remarks, including the fact that Bureau officers have been included in recent dawn raids in Quebec – see: here).
According to the Post’s reporting, the Competition Bureau, in addition to cooperating in searches, is “keeping tabs” on the ongoing Charbonneau inquiry, where testifying witnesses have made criminal and competition law allegations in relation to a wide range of conduct that includes bribery of public officials, illegal political campaign contributions and competition law violations, including criminal bid-rigging and conspiracy under sections 47 and 45 of the Competition Act. The Post also cites correspondence with the Bureau stating that criminal bid-rigging remains an enforcement priority for the Bureau.
While the Bureau’s enforcement powers include the ability to obtain court orders for search warrants and wiretaps, and uses enforcement partnerships as part of its efforts to detect and investigate Competition Act offences, it may be some time yet until any charges or laid or formal Bureau announcements are made given the relatively slower pace of criminal matters under the Act. For example, developments (e.g., pleas) and announcements are still being made in the Quebec’s Quebec gas price fixing investigation, which first began about five years ago.
In an interesting Canadian Bar Association (Competition Law Section) teleseminar earlier today (November 6th), the Competition Bureau’s Acting Senior Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Criminal Matters Branch, discussed the enforcement of cartels in small jurisdictions from a Canadian perspective.
The teleseminar, which included enforcement agency panelists from Canada (Matthew Boswell, Competition Bureau), Ireland (Patrick Kenny, Irish Competition Authority), New Zealand (Mary-Ann Borrowdale, New Zealand Commerce Commission) and Israel (Gadi Perl, Israel Antitrust Authority), focused on three aspects of “Cartel Enforcement in Smaller Jurisdictions”: the preparation of effective cartel laws; practical cartel enforcement issues; and enforcement results. In sum, the spectrum from the preparation of cartel rules to carrying them out.
The Senior Deputy Commissioner’s remarks focused on the Bureau’s Immunity and Leniency Programs and recent enforcement results. Interestingly, the Deputy Commissioner also discussed Bureau efforts to detect domestic (i.e., Canadian) cartels, a renewed focus on associations and the Bureau’s participation in the ongoing Quebec corruption/competition probe, which resulted in the resignation of Montreal’s Mayor last night and involved searches of four Laval engineering-consulting firms this morning.
Continued Reliance on Immunity and Leniency Programs
With respect to the Bureau’s Immunity and Leniency Programs, the Senior Deputy Commissioner summarized some of their key elements, confirmed that they continue to be the Bureau’s most important cartel detection tools (calling them “extremely important to the successful detection” of cartels in Canada), reminding applicants that the threshold to obtain markers was extremely low (to encourage participants to come forward at their “earliest opportunity”), while emphasizing that the Bureau continues to expect strict compliance with the timelines in both programs.
With respect to the latter point, the Senior Deputy Commissioner made it clear that while the Bureau is willing to grant extensions to perfect markers beyond its 30-day guideline, extensions are not granted lightly and the Bureau looks for applicants to justify delays – for example, with reference to internal company investigations, a concrete work-plan to provide information and status updates on the progress of cooperation with other jurisdictions.
The Senior Deputy Commissioner also confirmed the Bureau’s continued expectation for Immunity and Leniency applicants to provide waivers for the Bureau to communicate and cooperate with foreign agencies (although backstopped his waiver comments by noting that the Bureau rarely exchanged documents and understood immunity/leniency applicants’ interest in maintaining a paperless process generally, including through the proffer process).
He also discussed the importance of predictability and transparency for the Bureau’s Immunity and Leniency Programs to operate effectively, noting the fact that the requirements for both Programs are set out in detail on the Bureau’s website (and in its Immunity and Leniency Bulletins), including key requirements, director and officer rights and guidelines for fine calculations.
Interestingly, however, the Senior Deputy Commissioner did not raise the recent Federal Court decision in the Maxzone case, which has created uncertainty of whether the Federal Court will accept mathematically derived joint sentencing submissions (see e.g.: here) particularly around the Bureau’s 20% of affected Canadian volume of commerce figure historically used as a starting point for fine negotiations.
Enforcement Priorities & Recent Developments
With respect to enforcement, which was in some ways the more interesting aspect of the Deputy Commissioner’s remarks earlier today, he discussed the Bureau’s practical need to divide its enforcement resources between international and domestic cartel cases, saying at one point that the Bureau could, if it wished, “completely fill its [cartel enforcement] dance card with international cases”. He did, however, emphasize the Bureau’s continued interest in detecting and commencing enforcement in relation to domestic (i.e., Canadian) cartels.
In this regard, the Deputy Commissioner indicated that while the Bureau’s Immunity and Leniency Programs had been very successful in attracting cross-border cartel immunity/leniency applicants, they had been less so for domestic cartels (saying that they had had “moderate success” in Canada to date).
As such, in order to find new ways to detect Canadian cartels, he discussed a four-pronged enforcement approach currently being utilized by the Bureau involving: (i) developing relationships with Canadian public procurement authorities, (ii) partnerships with Canadian law enforcement agencies, (iii) outreach efforts to Canadian companies and other organizations (e.g., trade and professional associations), and (iv) media and public awareness efforts (e.g., Bureau news releases, education, speeches, etc.).
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
