<?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; price fixing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/price-fixing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 13:41:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<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>Canadian Plaintiffs Acheive a Breakthrough in Certifying Price Fixing Class Actions</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/08/canadian-plaintiffs-acheive-a-breakthrough-in-certifying-price-fixing-class-actions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/08/canadian-plaintiffs-acheive-a-breakthrough-in-certifying-price-fixing-class-actions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:21:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plaintiffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proving damages]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=731</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Courts in two Canadian cases have recently made it easier to certify direct and indirect-purchaser class actions seeking damages for alleged price fixing. Formerly, the difficulty of proving damages suffered by indirect purchasers on a class-wide basis was a major impediment to certifying such actions. The two decisions, DRAM (Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/08/canadian-plaintiffs-acheive-a-breakthrough-in-certifying-price-fixing-class-actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Complex Distribution Chain Kills DRAM Class Action – Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/04/complex-distribution-chain-kills-dram-class-action-%e2%80%93-pro-sys-consultants-ltd-v-infineon-technologies-ag/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/04/complex-distribution-chain-kills-dram-class-action-%e2%80%93-pro-sys-consultants-ltd-v-infineon-technologies-ag/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:32:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BC Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cy-pres]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM memory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infineon technologies ag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver of Tort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=436</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A proposed class action by purchasers of electronic goods containing DRAM memory chips would degenerate into a series of individual trials, the British Columbia Supreme Court has held in Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG.2 Key issues, including whether the plaintiffs paid more because of price-fixing by manufacturers of the chips, could not be determined on a class-wide basis. The court thus refused to certify the action as a class proceeding.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/04/complex-distribution-chain-kills-dram-class-action-%e2%80%93-pro-sys-consultants-ltd-v-infineon-technologies-ag/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AGO contributes to ABA handbook</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ago-contributes-to-aba-handbook/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ago-contributes-to-aba-handbook/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 02:11:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american bar association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Bar Association Handbook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation handbook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Indirect Purchaser Litigation Handbook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many Canadian class actions alleging price fixing conspiracies are run parallel to similar US class actions. As a result, this handbook will be useful to Canadian lawyers seeking to understand how the US class action system deals with issues surrounding indirect purchasers.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ago-contributes-to-aba-handbook/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joint venturers not liable for price fixing</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/joint-venturers-not-liable-for-price-fixing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/joint-venturers-not-liable-for-price-fixing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:06:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-competitive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint ventures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lessening of competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraint of trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule of reason]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is not per se illegal for a lawful, economically integrated joint venture to set prices at which the joint venture sells products, the US Supreme Court held in a February 28, 2006 , decision.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/joint-venturers-not-liable-for-price-fixing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Update &#8211; 2005 Year in Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/competition-law-update-2005-year-in-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/competition-law-update-2005-year-in-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Mar 2006 03:18:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[causation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consent agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rebate programs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shell corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[symbol technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecommunications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=378</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne , Jennifer Cantwell, Paul Emerson, Angela Yadav, Sonny Ingram, and Michael Binetti

TOP STORIES
Rona keeps Sherbrooke store
In May, the Competition Tribunal rescinded a September 2003 consent agreement, allowing home improvement retailer Rona Inc. to keep the Sherbrooke , Quebec store it agreed to sell to gain Bureau approval of its acquisition of Réno-Dépot. The Tribunal found that Home Depot’s imminent arrival was a change in the circumstances that led to the consent agreement, and that the agreement would not have been made in the present circumstances. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner’s arguments that it should refuse to rescind the agreement as a matter of discretion.

The Tribunal’s decision is the first time that the Competition Act’s variation / rescission provision (s. 106) has been applied to a consent agreement. Because consent agreements are negotiated and made by the parties, not the Tribunal, the Tribunal must look to the intentions of the parties. The Tribunal also emphasized that the Commissioner must be responsive to changing circumstances.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/competition-law-update-2005-year-in-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intellectual property is not exempt from Competition Act’s reach</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2005 03:39:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assignment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusive dealing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industrial design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[market allocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sherman act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc. On November 2 2005, the Federal Court of Appeal held that where an agreement to assign a patent increases the assignee&#8217;s market power in excess of that inherent in the patent itself, the provision in the Patent Act (s. 50) allowing the assignment does not prevent the agreement [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>“But for” is not enough</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/07/%e2%80%9cbut-for%e2%80%9d-is-not-enough/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/07/%e2%80%9cbut-for%e2%80%9d-is-not-enough/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:17:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[district of columbia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[worldwide conspiracy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=233</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has rejected the latest attempt by foreign plaintiffs to sue in the US for injury caused outside of the US by an alleged worldwide conspiracy to fix the price for certain vitamins.[1] The Empagran case is already familiar to Canadian competition and class action lawyers. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/07/%e2%80%9cbut-for%e2%80%9d-is-not-enough/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Bureau obtains record fine for domestic paper conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/01/competition-bureau-obtains-record-fine-for-domestic-paper-conspiracy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/01/competition-bureau-obtains-record-fine-for-domestic-paper-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:37:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbonless paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbonless sheets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=245</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 9, 2006, fine paper distributors Cascades Fine Papers Group Inc., Domtar Inc. and Unisource Canada each pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy and were fined $12.5 million each, for a total of $37.5 million, for conspiring to fix the price for carbonless sheets.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/01/competition-bureau-obtains-record-fine-for-domestic-paper-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court refuses to certify indirect purchaser class because of difficulties in proving liability:Chadha v. Bayer Inc.</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2003/11/court-refuses-to-certify-indirect-purchaser-class-because-of-difficulties-in-proving-liabilitychadha-v-bayer-inc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2003/11/court-refuses-to-certify-indirect-purchaser-class-because-of-difficulties-in-proving-liabilitychadha-v-bayer-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer class actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal rules of civil procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its recent decision in Chadha v. Bayer Inc., the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court’s refusal to certify a class of indirect purchasers of pigments used to colour bricks. The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal on July 17, 2003.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2003/11/court-refuses-to-certify-indirect-purchaser-class-because-of-difficulties-in-proving-liabilitychadha-v-bayer-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

