Archive for the 'Conspiracy' Category
UBS disclosed earlier today in its 2011 Annual Report that the Competition Bureau has granted it conditional immunity in relation to the ongoing global LIBOR price-fixing investigation:
“The Canadian Competition Bureau has granted UBS conditional immunity in connection with potential competition law violations related to submissions for Yen LIBOR. As a result of these conditional grants, we will not be subject to prosecutions, fines or other sanctions for antitrust or competition law violations in the jurisdictions where we have conditional immunity or leniency in connection with the matters we reported to those authorities, subject to our continuing cooperation. However, the conditional leniency and conditional immunity grants we have received do not bar government agencies from asserting other claims against us. In addition, as a result of the conditional leniency agreement with the DOJ, we are eligible for a limit on liability to actual rather than treble damages were damages to be awarded in any civil antitrust action under US law based on conduct covered by the agreement and for relief from potential joint-and-several liability in connection with such civil antitrust action, subject to our satisfying the DOJ and the court presiding over the civil litigation of our cooperation. The conditional leniency and conditional immunity grants do not otherwise affect the ability of private parties to assert civil claims against us.”
In Canada, the Competition Bureau has established formal Immunity and Leniency programs, under which companies or individuals that may have been involved in cartel (e.g, price-fixing) or other criminal conduct under the Competition Act may, if all conditions are satisfied, receive full immunity from prosecution or reductions in fines for cooperating with a Bureau investigation.
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.
Given the recent announcements that the LIBOR price-fixing investigation had expanded to Canada (see: Cartel Update: Competition Bureau Investigates Alleged Interbank Lending Rate Coordination), I thought that I would post some information about this rather interesting recent paper by Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz and Albert D. Metz discussing the use of screens in distinguishing explicit from tacit collusion in price-fixing cases. (“Screens” are statistical tests designed to identify whether collusion or manipulation exists in a market and which companies/individuals may be involved.)
This paper has been published by our friends at Competition Policy International (CPI) in their March edition of CPI Antitrust Chronicle (see: Competition Policy International).
On March 8, 2012, the Competition Bureau announced that another individual pleaded guilty under section 45 of the Competition Act to fixing the price of gasoline in the ongoing Quebec gasoline price-fixing cartel (see: Individual Fined in Gasoline Price-fixing Cartel).
This investigation is the largest criminal investigation in the Bureau’s history and has been active for about two years.
In making the announcement, the Bureau said:
“The accused, Robert Murphy (now retired), was a territorial manager employed by Sonic. He was sentenced today to pay a fine of $7,500.
Charges were laid in June 2008 and July 2010 against 38 individuals and 14 companies accused of fixing the price of gas at pumps in Victoriaville, Thetford Mines, Magog and Sherbrooke, Quebec. As of today, 22 individuals and six companies have pleaded guilty in this case, with fines totalling over $2.8 million. Of the 22 individuals who have pleaded guilty, six have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling 54 months.”
Weil, Gotshal has published an article in Practical Law entitled “How to Prepare for and Respond to a U.S. Antitrust Raid” (see: How to Prepare for and Respond to a U.S. Antitrust Raid).
Given that there are many similarities between searches (or “dawn raids”) in Canada and the United States, we thought this recent note would be of interest to our clients and Canadian firms.
On March 2, 2012, a new tentative hearing date of October 17, 2012 was set in the Pro-Sys and Sun-Rype indirect purchaser price-fixing class action cases before the Supreme Court of Canada (see: Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. (docket) and Sun-Rype Products Ltd. (docket)).
In Pro-Sys, a majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal set aside an earlier Supreme Court of British Columbia decision granting certification and dismissed the action on the basis that the representative plaintiffs, as indirect purchasers, had no cause of action maintainable in law.
In Sun-Rype, the British Columbia Court of Appeal similarly set aside an earlier Supreme Court of British Columbia decision granting certification for indirect purchaser plaintiffs, holding that they had no cause of action and remitted the application to the trial court for consideration with respect to the direct purchaser plaintiffs.
Our friend and colleague Marius Adomnica (Gratl & Company) has written this good case note on the recent Tim Hortons class action case in Ontario:
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released its reasons striking the Plaintiffs’ claim in Fairview Donut Inc. v. The TDL Group Corp., 2012 ONSC 1252, a widely reported Ontario class action arising out of a conflict over how the donuts in Tim Hortons stores are prepared.
Among the claims dismissed were claims the Plaintiffs had brought under the Competition Act.
While Tim Hortons donuts were traditionally baked from scratch in each individual store, in 2002 Tim Hortons partnered with an Irish company to establish a manufacturing plant that makes frozen, pre-cooked donuts and sells them to individual franchises, eliminating the need for the donuts to be baked from scratch at each store.
A number of dissatisfied franchise owners brought a lawsuit against Tim Hortons over this change, arguing essentially that the price they were required to pay for these donuts under their franchise agreements unfairly cut into their profits. Among other claims, the Plaintiffs argued that the company’ actions violated sections 61 (Price Maintenance) and 45 (Conspiracy) of the Competition Act.
On March 1, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Yazaki Corporation had plead guilty to three counts of bid-rigging under the U.S. Sherman Act and agreed to pay a fine of USD $470 million (see: U.S. v. Yazaki Corporation Plea Agreement).
This case relates to an ongoing global investigation of bid-rigging in the automotive parts industry and coordination among competing auto parts suppliers to rig bids for automotive wire harnesses and related products, instrument panel clusters and fuel senders sold to U.S. and international auto manufacturers between 2000 and 2010. There is currently some debate as to whether this global auto parts cartel may prove to be the largest in history.
According to the plea agreement in this case, officers and employees of Japanese firms, including high-level personnel, conspired with competing auto parts manufacturers over a ten year period, which included meetings in the United States and elsewhere to allocate markets for the sale of auto parts (in the case of this particular firm, involving over $2 billion in sales).
The defendant agreed to pay a fine of USD $470 million.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
