<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Litigator - Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; Michael Osborne</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/author/mosborne/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:37:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Pre-merger notification transaction size threshold increased to $77m</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/pre-merger-notification-transaction-size-threshold-increased-to-77m/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/pre-merger-notification-transaction-size-threshold-increased-to-77m/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:31:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau announced on February 7, 2012, that the pre-merger notification transaction size threshold will increase to $77 million, likely as of February 11, 2012. The party size threshold remains set at $400 million. Generally speaking, parties to proposed mergers must notify the Bureau in advance of closing where: The transaction relates to an [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/pre-merger-notification-transaction-size-threshold-increased-to-77m/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Bureau promises greater transparency in merger review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/competition-bureau-promises-greater-transparency-in-merger-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/competition-bureau-promises-greater-transparency-in-merger-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:29:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On February 6, 2012, the Competition Bureau announced that it would start publishing monthly reports of concluded merger reviews. The reports will include the names of the parties, the industry sector involved, and the result of the Bureau&#39;s review. The Bureau has even published a sample report involving a fictitious transaction.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/competition-bureau-promises-greater-transparency-in-merger-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quebec court raps plaintiffs’ knuckles</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:08:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Quebec Superior Court recently granted an unusually strict protective order to defendants in a class action to prevent evidence from the class action finding its way into parallel criminal proceedings against them. The defendants are a group of gas station owners (both corporations and individuals) who have been charged with conspiring to fix retail [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Class action waiver upheld in competition case</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action waiver]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Canada enforced a class action waiver and an arbitration clause in a private action under section 36 of the Competition Act.[1] The decision is significant because it clearly states two important principles: Class action waivers will be enforced unless they are contrary to statute Claims alleging breaches [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Indirect Purchaser Cases to be Heard by Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Archer Daniels Midland Company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft Corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sun-Rype Products Ltd.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1030</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On December 1, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear appeals in two cases that raise the issue: can indirect purchasers sue to recover losses arising from a price fixing conspiracy?[i] This issue has bedevilled Canadian courts for years. Direct purchasers are purchasers who buy directly from the participants in a price fixing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joint Venture Decision Criminal, Alberta Court Says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/joint-venture-decision-criminal-alberta-court-says/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/joint-venture-decision-criminal-alberta-court-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint venture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1009</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alberta court has held that a decision by joint operators of an oil field to sole source a contract constituted a conspiracy contrary to section 45 of the Competition Act, a criminal offence, and awarded damages to the company that lost out on the business.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/joint-venture-decision-criminal-alberta-court-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Long Arm of US Law Grabs Canadian Executive</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/09/canadian-executive-usa-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/09/canadian-executive-usa-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:25:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kick-backs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money laundering]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=981</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Doing business in the US can be very lucrative. But Canadian (and other foreign) companies and their executives that engage in corrupt practices there can expect to face serious penalties there.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/09/canadian-executive-usa-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Year in Review 2010</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/competition-law-year-in-review-2010/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/competition-law-year-in-review-2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 17:24:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franchises]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=958</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of all Canadian Competition Law developments over the pas year, plus some US developments, including: Mergers, Criminal, Private Actions, Reviewable Matters, Marketing Practices, The Long Arm of US Antitrust

<b>Top Stories</b>
<ul><li>Indirect purchasers cannot sue</li>
<li>Damages no longer required?</li>
<li>The wired and the wireless</li>
<li>Winds of change</li>
<li>Credit card rules challenged... priceless?</li>
<li>Rebates, savings and gift cards</li></ul>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/competition-law-year-in-review-2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Discoverability does not apply to competition claims</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/discoverability-does-not-apply-to-competition-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/discoverability-does-not-apply-to-competition-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 21:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dywidag Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Garfod PTY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[limitation period]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=943</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Court has recently ruled that the discoverability rule does not apply to extend the limitation period applicable to private actions launched to recover damages caused by breaches of the Competition Act.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/discoverability-does-not-apply-to-competition-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Raising the AMPerage</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/raising-the-amperage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/raising-the-amperage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:30:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative Monetary Penalty System]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AMPS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=872</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[AMPs have become widespread in administrative schemes in Canada because they fill a gap between traditional administrative and criminal enforcement tools. This paper explores the rationales that are behind the spread of AMPs in Canadian law. It outlines a number of AMP schemes in federal and provincial legislation. Finally, it discusses three issues that commonly arise in AMP proceedings: the availability of a due diligence defence, whether AMP provisions apply retrospectively, and interpretive difficulties raised by the novelty of language used in AMP provisions.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/raising-the-amperage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

