Archive for the 'Mergers' Category
In a small stroke of serendipity, I bumped into Paul Crampton here in Vancouver last week, who is on the Tribunal hearing the Commissioner’s challenge of the CCS Corporation / Complete Environmental waste merger (a merger to monopoly case and the first fully contested merger case before the Tribunal in six years).
In chatting with Paul, now a Federal Court judge and known in the competition bar for a variety of clever turns of phrase, such as raising a finger in the air and rhetorically requesting that a thorny legal or economic issue be “decoded” (usually for the benefit of others in the room less learned than Paul in such matters), I threatened to quote him on my blog.
It just so happened that the previous day, in working through a product market definition question, I had come across one of his quotes from his 1990 book on mergers.
So, as threatened, here is the quote, which I thought rather a fine one by Paul on the geeky topic of market definition in competition/antitrust law cases (and rather apropos following my bumping into him after he had heard argument in the BC waste merger case):
“The importance of preparing a well articulated argument in support of one’s view of the ‘relevant market’ in the context of a competition law case cannot be overstated. Put succinctly, the party who manages to convince the court of his view of this matter generally wins the case, because as the purported market is enlarged, the relative significance of the merging parties within the market usually decreases. Conversely, as a market is defined progressively more narrowly, the competitive significance of challenged conduct typically increases.” (Paul Crampton, Mergers and the Competition Act (Toronto: Carswell, 1990)).
We wish Paul and the Tribunal all the best of luck in “decoding” the waste merger.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
Bloomberg has reported that federal Industry Minister Christian Paradis has again raised the prospect of amending Canada’s Investment Canada Act (the “ICA”) in remarks he made in New York last week (see: Canada Open to Changing Foreign-Takeover Law, Paradis Says).
The Industry Minister’s comments closely follow a C.D. Howe Institute report also issued last week calling for fundamental changes to the ICA to stimulate foreign direct investment in Canada, including a change to the overarching test for foreign investment approval (replacing the current “net benefit to Canada” test with a national interest test) (see: New Publications – C.D. Howe Institute Report – Reforming the Investment Canada Act: Walk More Softly, Carry a Bigger Stick).
On December 1, 2011, the C.D. Howe Institute issued a report on the Investment Canada Act entitled Reforming the Investment Canada Act: Walk More Softly, Carry a Bigger Stick, authored by Philippe Bergevin and Daniel Schwanen.
The Commissioner of Competition, Melanie Aitken, addressed current enforcement priorities in two engaging and wide-ranging talks in Vancouver this evening: a keynote speech at a reception hosted by the University of British Columbia, National Centre for Business Law at the Four Seasons and a Vancouver Competition Policy Roundtable meeting organized by Professor Tom Ross of the Sauder School of Business.
TMX News Release (November 29, 2011)
“The Commissioner advised Maple and TMX Group that she has serious concerns about the likely competitive effects of the proposed transactions in the current environment, primarily in connection with equities trading and clearing and settlement services in Canada.
The Commissioner indicated that she has not reached a final conclusion and that her current views may be affected by further factual information and developments, which may include changes in the applicable securities regulatory regime, and any commitments or other remedial measures that Maple may be prepared to take to address her concerns.
Maple and TMX Group intend to continue to work closely with staff of the Competition Bureau to address the Commissioner’s concerns, including by identifying appropriate remedial measures. As Maple has stated previously, it is committed to working constructively with all of the relevant regulators, including Canadian securities regulators, to address any questions they may have so that the proposed transactions can proceed in the best interests of TMX Group, its shareholders and the Canadian capital markets. Maple and TMX Group continue to strongly believe that the proposed transactions will substantially benefit all capital market participants.”
On November 24, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave in United States Steel Corporation et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (FC) (Civil) (By Leave) (34389). See: Supreme Court of Canada Judgements. See also: National Post – Supreme Court Won’t Hear U.S. Steel Appeal.
To appeal a decision of a court of appeal in a civil case to the Supreme Court, the party wishing to appeal must first obtain leave (i.e., permission) to do so. Under the Supreme Court Act, an application for leave to appeal may be granted if the Supreme Court finds that the case: (i) raises an issue of public importance and (ii) should be decided by the Supreme Court. Any case must raise an issue that goes beyond the immediate interests of the parties.
The Supreme Court does not issue reasons for its decisions to allow or dismiss applications for leave to appeal. Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are also generally final (under the Supreme Court of Canada Rules, an application for leave to appeal will not be reconsidered unless there are exceedingly rare circumstances in the case that warrant consideration).
This U.S. Steel case relates to the federal government’s lawsuit against U.S. Steel in relation to the performance of undertakings U.S. Steel provided in its 2007 acquisition of Hamilton-based Stelco Inc. The Federal Court had previously allowed the government’s lawsuit to proceed.
Where an investor fails to comply with the Investment Canada Act (e.g., fails to file an application for review or notification, fails to comply with undertakings or completes a reviewable investment without the requisite approval) a number of penalties may be imposed. These include divestiture of assets, the revocation (or suspension) of voting rights and financial penalties of up to Cdn. $10,000 per day that an investor is in contravention of the Investment Canada Act (being sought by the government in this case).
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
Reuters Canada, Canadian Business, the Wall Street Journal and other media have reported that the Competition Bureau has issued a “no action” letter clearing Rio Tinto’s Cdn. $654 million friendly takeover offer for junior uranium developer Hathor Exploration.
In making the announcement, Rio Tinto said in its press release:
“Rio Tinto yesterday received Canadian Competition Bureau clearance for its offer, made through an indirect wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary, to acquire all the common shares of Hathor Exploration Limited (“Hathor”) for C$4.70 in cash per common share.
The Commissioner of Competition issued a ‘no action letter’ which constitutes compliance with all requirements of the Competition Act (Canada) in relation to Rio Tinto’s offer for Hathor.
Rio Tinto’s recommended offer values Hathor at approximately C$654 million on a fully-diluted basis and represents a premium to the unsolicited revised offer of Cameco Corporation’s of C$4.50 per common share of Hathor made on 14 November.
Hathor’s board of directors unanimously recommends that Hathor shareholders accept and tender their common shares to Rio Tinto’s offer which is open for acceptance until 5:00pm (Toronto time) on 30 November 2011, unless extended or withdrawn in accordance with its terms.”
See: Rio Tinto Receives Canadian Competition Bureau Clearance for its Offer for Hathor Exploration.
“No action letters” are one of two types of merger clearance (the other being Advance Ruling Certificates, or “ARCs”) available under the Competition Act. Unlike an ARC, however, where a no action letter is issued, the Commissioner may challenge the transaction for up to one year post-closing (a period recently shortened from three years as a result of 2009 amendments to the Competition Act).
Rio Tinto’s $4.70 per-share offer for Hathor, which it raised last week, expires November 30th.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
On October 25, 2011, the Competition Bureau published the Commissioner of Competition’s speech given at the 2011 Canadian Bar Association’s Annual Competition Law Conference in Ottawa.
It is fair to say that the Commissioner’s recent speech presented a singular tone across the civil and criminal competition law areas: enhanced enforcement.
Of the Commissioner’s remarks, some of the more interesting points include the Bureau’s increased focus on reviewing non-notifiable mergers (i.e., transactions that do not trigger the notification thresholds under the Competition Act), the statement that the Bureau has begun to revoke markers in some immunity cases where in its view immunity applicants are not complying with its Immunity Program and a subtle suggestion that the Bureau was preparing to bring, but not quite yet in a position to commence, the first conspiracy cases under the amended section 45 (Canada’s new hard core criminal conspiracy offences). The following are some highlights from the Commissioner’s recent speech.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
