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
The Globe and Mail has launched an online debate: “How can Canada become more competitive in the global marketplace?”
For more information or to join the debate, see:
Globe and Mail Debate: How can Canada become more competitive in the global marketplace?
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
We are pleased to announce the launch of our new Canadian advertising and marketing law blog: Canadian Advertising & Marketing Law.
Our new blog will include news and developments in Canadian advertising and marketing law, key resources and links and overviews of advertising law, the new anti-spam legislation (Bill C-28), comparative advertising, promotional contest law, misleading advertising, packaging and labeling laws and telemarketing.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
The Antitrust Law Section of the American Bar Association will be offering an online webinar on Remedies in Monopolization Cases on Wednesday, December 7, 2011.
From the ABA:
“The program will explore the thorny question of remedies for single firm anticompetitive conduct, including the structural, behavioral and damages remedies, from the EU and US perspectives. Our panelists will also explore the efficacy of remedies in high tech and other innovative industries. In addition, the program will also explore the very difficult issue of remedies in cases involving pricing conduct, intellectual property rights, and refusals to deal.”
____________________
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 November 22, 2011, the Competition Bureau announced that criminal charges had been laid against six companies and five individuals accused of rigging bids for provincial and municipal contracts for sewer services in the Montreal area (see: Competition Bureau Exposes Sewer Services Cartel in Quebec and Backgrounder – Competition Bureau Exposes Sewer Services Cartel in Quebec).
In making the announcement, the Bureau said:
“The evidence gathered by the Bureau reveals that the companies secretly agreed to coordinate their bids to pre-determine the winners of municipal and provincial contracts for the cleaning and maintenance of sewers.
‘This bid-rigging scheme misled officials into believing that tendering processes were competitive,’ said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. ‘In reality, those charged had submitted token bids designed to ensure that a pre-determined company would win the contracts. The scheme deliberately evaded requirements created to protect taxpayer dollars in the government procurement process.’”
Chillin’Competition has reported that antitrust students at Berkeley, down the road from us (so to speak), have launched a new competition/antitrust law blog. See: Berkeley Global Antitrust Blog
From the Berkeley Antitrust Blog:
“The Berkeley Antitrust Blog is an endeavor of current students of the Berkeley School of Law with many having been practicing antitrust lawyers but all being antitrust enthusiasts. The aim behind the blog is to create a platform for students, experts and professionals to write about the recent developments and ideologies relating to antitrust and competition law.
The blog looks to benefit from the synergies of varied viewpoints from different jurisdictions and offer a truly global perspective on antitrust law, which is crucial today owing to the growing intersection of the markets and economies with many antitrust violations resulting in parallel proceedings in various jurisdictions around the world.
Lastly, the blog hopes to work as a global networking device where students, people pursuing academia and professionals in the field can exchange thoughts, share experiences, get connected with each other.”
We wish them best of luck. For other international competition/antitrust law blogs see: Competition/Antitrust Blogs.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
Marrocco J. in The Commissioner of Competition v. Chatr Wireless Inc. and Rogers Communications Inc.:
“After the Commissioner announced that she was proceeding against Rogers Communications Inc. and Chatr Wireless Inc., Wind Mobile issued a press release claiming credit for the Commissioner’s decision to institute proceedings and Mobilicity sent a dance troupe, known as the Mobilicity Magenta Militia dance troupe, to Rogers Communications Inc. headquarters to engage in what might be termed a victory dance or demonstration of joy. A video of a portion of this victory dance or demonstration of joy was embedded in the affidavit of Arnold Abramowitz, filed by the respondents on this application.”
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
