Indirect purchasers of a product that was the subject of a price fixing conspiracy cannot sue to recover losses passed on to them by direct purchasers, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled in two landmark decisions issued recently. These decisions are now being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The US Supreme Court rejected the conjoined concepts of passing-on as a defence and passing-on as giving rise to a cause of action by indirect purchasers in two landmark decisions, Hanover Shoe (1968) and Illinois Brick (1977). The issue of whether indirect purchasers could claim in Canada first arose ... [more] Full article
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 Top Stories
- Can indirect purchasers sue for price-fixing losses?
- Bureau reverses the charges on hidden fees
- Court throws the book at Yellow Page business directory scam
- Complex Distribution Chain Kills DRAM Class Action – Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG
- Passing-on no defence; unlawfully collected taxes must be refunded, Supreme Court rules
- Court refuses to certify indirect purchaser class because of difficulties in proving liability:Chadha v. Bayer Inc.