Archive for November, 2011
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.”
In a short but interesting recent note, Madam Justice Sandra J. Simpson has proposed changes be made to the federal Competition Tribunal. In an article entitled “The Competition Tribunal 2003-2011 and Beyond”, the Federal Court judge, who sits on the Competition Tribunal, recommendeds that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction should be expanded to include the following:
1. Single damages for parties in private actions;
2. Private actions for abuse of dominance with leave (to which Justice Simpson adds that the Tribunal has exercised its power to grant leave to private parties responsibly);
3. A reference power for parties in negotiations with the Commissioner; and
4. The approval of consent agreements by a judge alone – with written comments from but no intervention by affected parties (which, in Justice Simpson’s view, will “ensure that the Commissioner has a defensible theory of harm to support his or her settlements”).
Earlier this month, the Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the earlier 2008 Quebec Superior Court decision in Option Consommateurs v. Infineon Technologies AG, which had denied a motion to commence class action proceedings.
The decision in this case, which follows U.S. proceedings and guilty pleas in relation to a price-fixing conspiracy for the supply of dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”), is significant in expressly allowing indirect class action plaintiffs to proceed despite two earlier British Columbia Court of Appeal decisions that created a de facto passing-on defence (see: British Columbia Court of Appeal Allows Microsoft Appeal in Pro-Sys v. Microsoft – Creates de facto Passing-on Defence). (for the earlier BC judgments in Pro-Sys and Sun-Rype see: Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation and Sun-Rype Products v. Archer Daniels Midland Company).
In these two earlier British Columbia decisions, the Court of Appeal set aside the plaintiffs’ earlier certification decisions largely based on the risk that allowing indirect purchaser plaintiffs to proceed may lead to double recovery. In this regard, Mr. Justice Lowry held:
“… in the absence of the passing-on defence, a defendant would be liable for both the whole of the charge passed on (liability to the direct purchasers) and for all or any portion of the charge passed on (liability to the indirect purchasers) … [that] would result in double recovery … which our law does not permit.”
The Canadian Institute will be holding an Advertising and Marketing Law Conference on Wednesday, January 25-26, 2012 at the Four Seasons Hotel, Toronto, Ontario.
From the Canadian Institute:
“We have obtained the highest quality speakers to present you with cutting edge analysis and practical guidance on the latest issues in this constantly evolving area of law. In fact, leaders in this field have been relying on our conference year after year to hone their skills, so join us at The Canadian Institute’s 18th Annual Advertising & Marketing Law program and be equipped with the tools necessary to be completely confident in your practice. Keynote Address: Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau Canada Recent Enforcement Initiatives and Future Directions of the Competition Bureau. In the past year we have already seen, and will continue to see significant developments. You will learn about them all through our stimulating and interactive mix of sessions, including:
The latest need to know enforcement trends and priorities of the Competition Bureau
An in-depth analysis of the Anti-Spam legislation – in anticipation of it being proclaimed into force
The noteworthy differences between our Anti-Spam legislation and the U.S. Can-Spam Act
A practical session on drafting disclaimers on all forms of media
The most up-to-date tips on running contests
Risk mitigation for all emerging and recently revived marketing & advertising techniques
The latest issues and trends from the U.S. and how they may affect you”
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
The National Competition Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association has published the most recent issue of the Canadian Competition Law Review (2011 – Vol. 24 No. 1) (formerly the Canadian Competition Record) (see: Canadian Competition Law Review – 2011 – Vol. 24 No. 1).
This issue of the Canadian Competition Law Review includes articles and comments on indirect purchaser class actions, the institutional design of Canadian competition policy, the Competition Tribunal, the U.S. Horizontal Merger Guidelines, the treatment of buying-side agreements under the amended section 45 of the Competition Act and injunctions in misleading advertising cases.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
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
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
