<?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; Conspiracy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/competition-law/conspiracy-competition-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law,  Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:52:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Japanese auto-parts maker to pay record $30 million fine for bid-rigging</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:16:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2442</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yazaki Corporation was fined $30 million after pleading guilty to rigging bids for wire harnesses supplied to Honda and Toyota for the 2005.5 Honda Ridgeline, 2006 Honda Civic and 2006 Toyota Corolla/Matrix models. The volume of commerce affected in Canada was about US $260 million. This is the largest fine ever to be ordered for bid-rigging&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Record $5 million bid rigging fine for auto parts maker</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:06:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2366</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently ordered Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd., a Japanese supplier of motor vehicle components, to pay a fine of $5 million after it pleaded guilty to participating in an international bid-rigging conspiracy. To date, this is the largest fine a court has imposed in Canada for a bid-rigging offence under&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guilty pleas continue in gasoline price-fixing conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:04:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two individuals have pleaded guilty to fixing the price of gasoline in Sherbrooke, Quebec. The Quebec Superior Court sentenced them to pay $8,000 in fines. To date, 33 individuals and seven companies have pleaded guilty or were found guilty of gas price-fixing. Fines in excess of $3 million have been levied and sentences to be served&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-review-2013</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affleck greene mcmurtry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketing practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open market economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulated conduct defence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement agreement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of major Canadian Competition Law developments over the past year, including: Top Stories, Criminal, Class Actions &#038; Private Actions, Mergers, Reviewable Matters, Marketing Practices, Related Developments, The Long Arm of US Antitrust, Across the Pond]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tim Hortons Franchisees Must Be Content With Profits from Coffee, Not Food</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:15:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franchises]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2014</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tim Hortons franchisees have lost their challenge to Tim Hortons&#8217; &#8220;Always Fresh&#8221; model that allegedly reduced the profitability of donuts, TimBits, and other food items. In Fairview Donut Inc. v. The TDL Group Corp., the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lengthy lower court decision that on the one hand certified a class action against&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thanks for the memory: DRAM defendants to pay $29m</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 20:17:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1974</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Five groups of defendants in the DRAM class action have agreed to pay over $29 million to settle allegations that they fixed prices for DRAM memory chips. DRAM, which stands for dynamic random access memory, is a type of memory chip used in computers and other electronics. The plaintiffs claim that certain manufacturers and distributors&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guilty Pleas Continue in Quebec Gas Price-Fixing Conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:38:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1938</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An individual retailer operating under the Petro-Canada banner has pleaded guilty to fixing the price of gasoline in Sherbrooke, Quebec, the Competition Bureau announced on December 28, 2012. The retailer was sentenced to a fine of $5,000. To date, 28 individuals and 7 companies have pleaded guilty. Fines in excess of $3 million have been&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More charges come down the sewer pipe</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1925</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has announced an additional 23 criminal charges against Kelly Sani-Vac Inc., its vice-president, and the former president of Chalifoux Sani Laurentides Inc., for bid-rigging municipal sewer services contracts in Montreal. The charges in question relate to 15 calls for tender between September 2009 and September 2011. The approximate value for the sewer&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Irving Oil Accused of Fixing Gas Prices</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:38:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gasoline price fixing; Irving Oil;]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1759</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Criminal charges have been laid against Irving Oil and its Quebec manager, alleging that they fixed the price of gasoline in Victoriaville, Thetford Mines and Sherbrooke, Quebec. The charges are part of the Competition Bureau’s ongoing investigation into gas price-fixing in certain Quebec communities. To date, 39 individuals and 15 companies have been charged. Twenty-seven individuals&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Micron settles SRAM price-fixing allegations</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IBM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samsung]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Micron has agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a class proceeding alleging that it participated in a conspiracy to fix prices for Static Random Access Memory (SRAM). SRAM is a type of memory used in computers, cellular phones, and game consoles. Micron also agreed to cooperate with the plaintiffs in the ongoing proceedings in British&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Charges Stayed After Crown Breaks Deal in Gas Conspiracy Case</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-stayed-after-crown-breaks-deal-in-gas-conspiracy-case/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=charges-stayed-after-crown-breaks-deal-in-gas-conspiracy-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-stayed-after-crown-breaks-deal-in-gas-conspiracy-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2012 02:13:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gasoline]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Quebec gas retailer and convenience store operator Couche-Tard Inc. escaped price fixing charges after a Quebec Superior Court judge found that the Crown&#8217;s repudiation of a settlement agreement irreparably prejudiced the fairness of the proceeding. In 2008, Alimentation Couche-Tard was charged with fixing retail gasoline prices in Sherbrooke, Magog, Victoriaville, and Thetford Mines, Quebec. On&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-stayed-after-crown-breaks-deal-in-gas-conspiracy-case/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-stayed-after-crown-breaks-deal-in-gas-conspiracy-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More guilty pleas from Sewer Bid-Riggers</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brigid Wilkinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has garnered yet another guilty plea in its clean-up of the Montreal sewer bid-rigging conspiracy. Canalisation Nord Américaine Ltée pleaded guilty in the Quebec Superior Court last Friday and will pay a $15,000 fine.  They were charged on November 22, 2011, with 3 counts of bid-rigging, in relation to contracts worth approximately&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real estate consulting firm guilty of bid rigging</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:55:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Yonatan Lipetz, Summer Student</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1608</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau’s prosecution of the real estate advisory bid-rigging conspiracy for federal contracts continued with the announcement on July 30 that Corporate Research Group (CRG), pleaded guilty. CRG collaborated with Louis Facchini – who was carrying on business as First Porter Consultancy – in submitting bids in response to the request for standing offers&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Bureau Cleans Up Montreal Sewer Conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/competition-bureau-cleans-up-montreal-sewer-conspiracy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-bureau-cleans-up-montreal-sewer-conspiracy</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/competition-bureau-cleans-up-montreal-sewer-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:21:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau's clean-up of the Montreal sewer bid-rigging conspiracy continued with the announcement that a second company and one of its executives pleaded guilty.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/competition-bureau-cleans-up-montreal-sewer-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Discoverability, continuing effects, and Competition Act limitation periods</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:55:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal left open the possibility that the discoverability principle may apply to the two-year limitation period established for private actions under section 36 of the Competition Act, but confirmed that the effects of a conspiracy are not a part of the offence and thus do not extend&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New conspiracy provision of the Competition Act in action</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/01/new-conspiracy-provision-of-the-competition-act-in-action/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=new-conspiracy-provision-of-the-competition-act-in-action</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/01/new-conspiracy-provision-of-the-competition-act-in-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:50:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brigid Wilkinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau garnered its first conviction under the amended conspiracy provision of the Competition Act yesterday, as Domfoam International Inc. and Valle Foam Industries (1995) Inc. plead guilty to conspiracy and were fined $12.5 million. The investigation into the price-fixing of polyurethane foam has been ongoing since February 2010 and received cooperation through both&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/01/new-conspiracy-provision-of-the-competition-act-in-action/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/01/new-conspiracy-provision-of-the-competition-act-in-action/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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/">[...]</a>]]></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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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>Discoverability does not apply to competition claims</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/discoverability-does-not-apply-to-competition-claims/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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>Aggregate Assessment of Damages Allows Certification of Conspiracy Class Actions, Courts Hold</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/aggregate-assessment-of-damages-allows-certifcation-of-conspiracy-class-actions-courts-hold/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=aggregate-assessment-of-damages-allows-certifcation-of-conspiracy-class-actions-courts-hold</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/aggregate-assessment-of-damages-allows-certifcation-of-conspiracy-class-actions-courts-hold/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:36:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Atofina Chemicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british columbia court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM memory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hydrogen perozide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infineon Technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Irving Paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=697</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In two recent decisions, the Ontario Superior Court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal relied on the aggregate damages provisions of the Class Proceedings Act in their respective provinces to certify class actions seeking damages for alleged conspiracies to fix prices for hydrogen peroxide and DRAM memory chips. In doing this, both courts side-stepped the requirement in the aggregate damages provisions that liability must be proved before damages can be assessed in the aggregate. A close examination of the decisions suggests, however, that the courts have in effect done away with this statutory requirement.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/aggregate-assessment-of-damages-allows-certifcation-of-conspiracy-class-actions-courts-hold/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
