The Competition Bureau's review of the Maple / TMX
transaction was extensive. Maple Group (whose investors are Alberta
Investment Management Corporation, Caisse de dépôt et
placement du Québec, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board,
CIBC World Markets Inc., Desjardins Financial Group, Dundee Capital
Markets Inc., Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du
Québec (F.T.Q.), National Bank Financial & Co. Inc.,
Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, Scotia Capital Inc., TD
Securities Inc. and The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company) announced on May 15, 2011, in the midst of the
failed bid by the TSX to merge with the LSE,
that the Group had submitted a proposal to acquire the TMX Group.
Maple filed an application for an advance ruling certificate on
June 7, 2011. The transaction was therefore under active
Competition Bureau review for a period of some 13 months.
The issuance of the "no-action letter" by the
Commissioner coincides with the issuance by the Ontario Securities Commission of
final recognition orders regarding the proposed transaction.
The Commissioner stated in a press release that "the measures
contained in the OSC's final recognition orders materially
change the regulatory environment sufficient to substantially
mitigate the Bureau's competition concerns" thereby
addressing the serious competition concerns that the Bureau had
previously communicated to Maple in two areas: equities trading,
and post-trade services, including clearing, settlement and
depository services.
Notably, there is no consent agreement under the Competition Act in respect of the
proposed transaction, with the result that beyond the standard
one-year period after closing within which the Commissioner may
challenge a transaction on the grounds that it substantially
lessens or prevents competition, there will be no ongoing
monitoring or enforcement of any competition law remedy. Such
ongoing monitoring and regulation will instead fall to the OSC and
other securities law regulators.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has released its reasons for decision in R v. Dowdall, affirming the Superior Court’s earlier decision to commit 17 defendants to stand trial on charges of bid-rigging under s.47 of the Competition Act.
In cases heard barely two weeks apart, Canada’s Competition Bureau obtained record-setting fines against two Japanese auto parts suppliers that pleaded guilty to bid-rigging charges.
On April 18, 2013 before Justice L.D. Ratushny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, a Japanese supplier of motor vehicle components, Yazaki Corporation ("Yazaki") pleaded guilty to three counts of bid-rigging, in violation of subsection 47(2) of the Competition Act.
Following its approval in December 2012 of two high-profile transactions involving foreign state-owned enterprises acquiring Canadian businesses, the Canadian government announced new policies that would guide the minister of industry in applying the Investment Canada Act (ICA) to subsequent similar transactions.
The Competition Tribunal has recently dismissed the Commissioner of Competition's application challenging certain practices of the Toronto Real Estate Board under the abuse of dominance provisions in section 79 of the Competition Act.
The Canadian Competition Tribunal has recently released its decision dismissing the Commissioner of Competition's application against the Toronto Real Estate Board.
In a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, "Canada v. RBC Life Insurance Company", the FCA confirmed that government officials must be fully transparent with the court.
Twitter
Facebook
Digg 
