<?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; Mergers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/competition-law/mergers/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>Metal merger not anti-competitive, Bureau says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/05/metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/05/metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:52:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Samuel, Son &#38; Co. Limited can complete its acquisition of Wilkinson Steel and Metals Inc. after the Competition Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge the deal. Samuel and Wilkinson process, distribute and sell various steel and speciality metals. Samuel operates service centres across Canada and Wilkinson conducts business in Western Canada. The&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/05/metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/05/metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Leon’s acquisition of The Brick not anti-competitive, Bureau says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:07:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge the acquisition of The Brick Ltd. by Leon’s Furniture Limited. The Bureau’s investigation revealed that while both parties are incredibly close rivals, particularly in the retailing of furniture and mattresses, the transaction was unlikely to substantially lessen or prevent competition since effective national and regional&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/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>LifeLabs BC&#8217;s proposed acquisition of BC Biomedical not anti-competitive, Bureau says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:18:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bc biomedical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bc medical services commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lifelabs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2324</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge LifeLabs BC LP&#8217;s acquisition of BC Biomedical Laboratories Ltd. LifeLabs and BC Biomedical are community-based facilities that provide diagnostic testing services to patients, including specimen collection and lab testing outside of hospitals. Both LifeLabs and BC Biomedical provide services in the Lower Mainland of British&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bell agrees to sell channels to gain Bureau approval of Astral takeover</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has reached an agreement with BCE Inc. (Bell), in relation to its proposed acquisition of Astral Media Inc. Bell agreed to divest itself of Astral’s ownership of several specialty channels, including, The Family Channel, Teletoon, and The Cartoon Network. Bell must also refrain from imposing bundling requirements on providers who want to&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bureau clears National Oilwell Varco’s acquisition of Robbins &amp; Myers</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2013 03:28:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge National Oilwell Varco’s acquisition of Robbins &#38; Myers. National and R&#38;M provide products, including motor components and blowout preventers, and other services in the oil, gas and extraction industry. The Bureau’s preliminary review focused on National and R&#38;M’s competitors in various product categories. The Bureau&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Landfill divestiture order upheld</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/landfill-divestiture-order-upheld/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=landfill-divestiture-order-upheld</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/landfill-divestiture-order-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:22:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2267</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tervita (formerly CCS Corporation) has lost its appeal from the Competition Tribunal&#8217;s decision that its acquisition of the Babkirk hazardous waste site would lead to a substantial prevention in the market for the disposal of hazardous waste in Northeastern British Columbia. The Federal Court of Appeal&#8217;s decision was announced by the Bureau on February 11,&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/landfill-divestiture-order-upheld/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/landfill-divestiture-order-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Acquisition of retail hardware company cleared</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:54:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge the proposed acquisition of Paulin and Co. by The Hillman Companies Inc., both of which are suppliers of retail hardware to retail stores in Canada. Retail hardware products include fasteners, such as nuts, bolts, and other related accessories. The Bureau reviewed the transaction and concluded&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bureau clears RBC&#8217;s acquisition of Ally Canada</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:51:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau will not challenge Royal Bank of Canada’s acquisition of Ally Credit Canada Limited, ResMor Trust Company, and certain Canadian affiliates. The transaction involves Ally Canada’s business in consumer and commercial automobile financing and personal banking. The Bureau’s review focused on various product markets including, indirect consumer automobile financing; subvention financing; floor plan financing;&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pre-merger notification threshold increased to $80 million</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau announced on February 8, 2013, that the pre-merger notification size threshold will increase to $80 million, effective January 12, 2013. The party size threshold remains set at $400 million. Generally, the Bureau must be notified of a proposed merger before closing where: 1.The transaction relates to an operating business in Canada; 2.The&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lights, camera, no action: Bureau clears film distribution deal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 22:02:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1948</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Entertainment One Ltd. can wrap up its acquisition of Alliance Films Holdings Inc. after the Competition Bureau issued a &#8220;no action letter&#8221; on January 3, 2012, indicating that the Commissioner of Competition does not intend to challenge the deal. Both eOne and Alliance are major competitors for the distribution of films in Canada with substantial&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Merged pork processors unlikely to hog market, Bureau rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:27:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1913</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Acquisitions of two ailing pork producers by large meat processors will not be challenged, the Competition Bureau announced on December 17, 2012. Meat processor Olymel L.P. is buying Western Canada’s largest hog producer, Big Sky Farms Inc., and Maple Leaf Foods is buying Western Canada second largest hog producer, Puratone Corporation. Big Sky is currently&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Bureau clears electrical distributors merger</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:48:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1886</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau will not challenge the merger of two major distributors of electrical products, WESCO Distribution Inc. and EECOL Electric Corp., it announced on December 7, 2012. The Bureau found that the two distributors compete to sell low voltage electrical components in 17 local markets in Western Canada. The Bureau also found that geographic&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Waste Services Companies Trashed Consent Agreement, Bureau says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1630</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has charged two waste companies, Progressive Waste Solutions Ltd. and its subsidiary, BFI Canada Inc., with violating several terms of a consent agreement they entered into with the Bureau in June 2010. The June 2010 consent agreement resolved the Bureau&#8217;s concerns that a merger between IESI-BFC Ltd. and Waste Services Inc. (now&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Aircraft part maker merger cleared</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 04:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1558</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau announced on July 26, 2012, that it would allow United Technology Corporation to buy Goodrich Corporation. Both UTC and Goodrich make parts for aircraft, and the Bureau&#8217;s analysis found that overlap between the two companies would lessen competition in markets for electrical generators and engine controls. However, UTC and Goodrich agreed with&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Maple Approval Leaves Canada with Regulated Monopoly Stock Exchange</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/maple-approval-leaves-canada-with-regulated-monopoly-stock-exchange/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=maple-approval-leaves-canada-with-regulated-monopoly-stock-exchange</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/maple-approval-leaves-canada-with-regulated-monopoly-stock-exchange/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:37:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alpha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CDS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maple Group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TMX Group]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1456</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a surprise move, the Competition Bureau cleared the Maple Group's bid to acquire TMX Group, Alpha Group, and Canadian Depository Services on July 4, 2012. On the same day, the OSC issued a recognition order regulating the Maple Group. These approvals leave Canada with one stock exchange that will operate as a regulated monopoly.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/maple-approval-leaves-canada-with-regulated-monopoly-stock-exchange/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/competition-law-review-2011/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-review-2011</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/competition-law-review-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:54:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1259</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of major Canadian Competition Law developments over the past year, including: Criminal, Reviewable Matters, Mergers, Marketing Practices, Private Enforcement, The Long Arm of US Antitrust, Across the Pond

<b>Top Stories</b>
<ul><li>Can indirect purchasers sue for price-fixing losses?</li>
<li>Bureau reverses the charges on hidden fees</li>
<li>Court throws the book at Yellow Page business directory scam</li>
</ul>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/competition-law-review-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></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&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/pre-merger-notification-transaction-size-threshold-increased-to-77m/">[...]</a>]]></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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></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>Competition Tribunal dismisses first ever consent agreement challenge</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/competition-tribunal-dismisses-first-ever-consent-agreement-challenge/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-tribunal-dismisses-first-ever-consent-agreement-challenge</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/competition-tribunal-dismisses-first-ever-consent-agreement-challenge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2006 22:27:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angela Yadev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aboriginal rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Angela Yadav]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consent agreements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Only third parties experiencing a first hand impact on a right or serious interest relating to competition can challenge consent agreements, the Competition Tribunal ruled in Burns Lake Native Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Competition and West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/competition-tribunal-dismisses-first-ever-consent-agreement-challenge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Tribunal dismisses first ever consent agreement challenge</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/competition-tribunal-dismisses-first-ever-consent-agreement-challenge-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-tribunal-dismisses-first-ever-consent-agreement-challenge-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/competition-tribunal-dismisses-first-ever-consent-agreement-challenge-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2006 20:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angela Yadev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aboriginal rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consent agreements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=175</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Only third parties experiencing a first hand impact on a right or serious interest relating to competition can challenge consent agreements, the Competition Tribunal ruled in Burns Lake Native Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Competition and West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/competition-tribunal-dismisses-first-ever-consent-agreement-challenge-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Tribunal orders sale of landfill (again); CWS appeals (again)</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/competition-tribunal-orders-sale-of-landfill-again-cws-appeals-again/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-tribunal-orders-sale-of-landfill-again-cws-appeals-again</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/competition-tribunal-orders-sale-of-landfill-again-cws-appeals-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:07:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acquisition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divestiture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[landfills]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[southwestern Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=344</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canadian Waste Services has appealed the latest Tribunal decision in its long-running merger case to the Federal Court of Appeal. On June 28, 2004, the Competition Tribunal rejected CWS "change of circumstances" application that sought to rescind the Tribunal’s October 2001, order that it sell the Ridge landfill. The Tribunal made that order after concluding that CWS’ acquisition of the Ridge would substantially lessen and prevent competition.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/competition-tribunal-orders-sale-of-landfill-again-cws-appeals-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
