hours available CLE/CPD * A conference presented by the Antitrust and Trade Law Section of the International Bar Association and the National Competition Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association. International Bar Association and Canadian Bar Association combined Spring Competition Law Conference NorthNorth AmericaAmerica andand thethe globalisationglobalisation ofof 3-4 May 2007 antitrustantitrust Sutton Place Hotel TORONTO, Canada Supported by * Up to 9.5 hours available as per the Law Society of England and Wales. Up to 12 hours available as per the Law Society of Upper Canada. The Who should attend? number of CPD points/hours Antitrust, competition, commercial and corporate lawyers in private available may vary for other bar practice, in-house counsel, economists, enforcement officials and associations and law societies depending on their criteria. academics. Conference Co-Chairs Bruno Ciuffetelli Hogan & Hartson LLP, Caracas; Chair, Antitrust Committee, IBA Legal Practice Division Programme James Musgrove Lang Michener LLP, Toronto, Ontario; Chair, National Competition Law Section, Canadian Bar Association Thursday 3 May 0800 – 1730 Richard Parker O’Melveny & Myers LLP, • Are efficiency enhancing mergers between Registration Washington DC competitors in the national interest? Madeleine Renaud McCarthy Tétrault LLP, What about the multinational interest? 0900 – 0910 Montreal, Quebec Co-Moderators Opening remarks Richard Taylor Deputy Commissioner of Calvin Goldman Blake Cassels & Graydon By the conference co-chairs Competition, Civil Matters Branch, LLP, Toronto, Ontario Canadian Competition Bureau, Gatineau, Inigo Igartua Arregui Gomez-Acebo & 0910 – 0945 Quebec Pombo, Barcelona; Senior Vice-Chair, Keynote address Antitrust Committee, IBA Legal Practice Sheridan Scott Commissioner of 1045 – 1115 Coffee/Tea break Division Competition, Canadian Competition Bureau, Gatineau, Quebec Panellists 1230 – 1400 Lunch Melanie Aitken Acting Deputy Introduction and appreciation by the Sponsored by Cole and Partners Commissioner of Competition, Mergers conference co-chairs Keynote address Branch, Canadian Competition Bureau, Tom Barnett Assistant Attorney General, Gatineau, Quebec 0945 – 1230 Antitrust Division, US Department of Steve Newborn Weil Gotshal & Manges Abuse of dominance: Justice, Washington DC LLP, Washington DC international convergence or Jonathan Scott Herbert Smith LLP, Introduction divergence? London Ronan Harty Davis Polk & Wardwell, With a new ICN working group on unilateral New York; Senior Vice-Chair, Antitrust conduct, the release of guidelines on Article 1500 – 1730 Committee, IBA Legal Practice Division 82 expected in Europe during the first half of Mergers: advocacy with 2007, hearings on section 2 of the Sherman Appreciation reviewing agencies Act and the first ever appellate decision on Don Affleck Affleck Greene Orr LLP, This roundtable session will explore abuse of dominance in Canada, this area of Toronto, Ontario; Past Chair, National the importance of effective advocacy to law has come under a worldwide spotlight. Competition Law Section, Canadian Bar the outcome of complex merger review. At the same time, it has become increasingly Association Recent decisions by regulators in a number complex and more difficult to navigate, of high-profile merger cases highlight the particularly for cross-border businesses. 1400 – 1500 Showcase panel importance of qualitative assessment criteria This panel of experts from Canada, the and regulatory strategy to the outcome United States and Europe will explain the Merger efficiencies in Canada, of merger review. What approaches for implications of recent changes and cases the United States and Europe presenting your case to regulators will tip such as Canada Pipe, British Airways and Mergers between competitors have the their decision – to challenge your merger Trinko on firms’ pricing, marketing and potential to generate significant efficiencies. or to close their investigation without a distribution practices. Such mergers may not materialise, however, challenge – in your client’s favour? if merger rules do not accord efficiencies Topics to be addressed by this panel include: In particular, how do you establish: significant weight or agencies take too long • What conduct falls foul of the rules and • whether entry or expansion is likely to to clear efficiency enhancing mergers. The when? Rebates? Tying? Single branding? occur post merger? Canadian Commissioner of Competition has Low pricing? • that foreign imports will or will not be recently announced that the Competition • In what circumstances is effects-based sufficient to constrain the market power Bureau will both clear anti-competitive analysis of economic evidence more of the merging parties? mergers where the efficiencies defence is appropriate than per se rules? • whether coordinated behaviour will occur? met, and do so quickly, without resort to a • How to minimise the burden of complying • the extent to which buyers really do have lengthy hearing in certain circumstances. with different rules in different countries? countervailing power? This showcase panel will put the Bureau’s Co-Moderators Drawing on their experiences in complex new position in global context, examining Brian A Facey Blake Cassels & Graydon merger cases, including Whirlpool/Maytag, the role of merger efficiencies in Canada, LLP, Toronto, Ontario AO Smith/GSW, Airtours and Diageo/Pernod Europe and the United States and Gregory McCurdy Microsoft Corporation, Ricard/Seagram, the panel will discuss what implications for cross-border cases. It will Seattle, Washington; Vice-Chair, Antitrust constitutes effective advocacy in the merger address issues such as: Committee, IBA Legal Practice Division review context, and strategies for addressing • What role do merger efficiencies now play the factual issues and overcoming the legal Panellists in Canada, the EC and the United States? hurdles that antitrust counsel face in Lorena Boix Alonso Policy Adviser, • Will US and EC agencies match the complex merger cases. Cabinet of the Commissioner for Canadian approach? Or will Canadian Co-Moderators Competition, European Commission, businesses gain a competitive advantage? Ronan Harty Brussels • How do different approaches affect Jay Holsten Torys LLP, Toronto, Ontario; Kenneth L Glazer Deputy Director, Bureau timing/acceptance of efficiencies in cross- Chair, CBA National Competition Law of Competition, US Federal Trade border cases? Section Mergers Committee Commission, Washington DC • Are efficiencies being left on the table Gil Ohana Director, Antitrust and because of procedural roadblocks or Competition, Cisco Systems Inc, San Jose, substantive uncertainty? California Friday 4 May Panellists 0815 – 1230 1130 – 1230 Paul Cuomo Howrey LLP, Washington DC Registration Roundtable: Peter Franklyn Osler Hoskin & Harcourt judging economics LLP, Toronto, Ontario 0845 – 1130 Economic theories and techniques are Malcolm Nicholson Slaughter and May, International cartel evolving continuously and competition London enforcement litigation is becoming more complex. This Margaret Sanderson CRA International, Cartels continue to be a top enforcement panel will examine how economic evidence Toronto, Ontario priority in North America, Europe and, can best be presented to and adjudicated by Jeff Schmidt Director, Bureau of increasingly, in other jurisdictions. Over courts/tribunals. In particular, the panellists Competition, US Federal Trade the past year there have been numerous will discuss: Commission, Washington DC changes to leniency programmes and • The uses and limitations of various types practices, with a particular focus on the of expert economic evidence ranging from 1545 – 1615 Coffee/Tea break treatment of second and subsequent theories/models to econometric cooperating parties. simulations • Challenges to expert witnesses based on This panel will cover important developments qualifications and methodology standards 1800 – 1945 Reception in the following areas: (eg the US ‘Daubert’ standards), acting as Gardiner Museum • Revisions to immunity programmes advocates or becoming fact witnesses 111 Queen’s Park, Toronto • The treatment of subsequent cooperating • Best practices for leading direct economic Sponsored by CRA International parties evidence and cross-examining experts • Access of private plaintiffs to evidence • Alternatives to the traditional ‘opposing generated from cooperation with experts’ model including panels of experts enforcement agencies (‘hot tubbing’) and tribunal-appointed • The implications and risks for companies experts which defend rather than cooperate Co-Moderators Co-Moderators Joe Angland Heller Ehrman LLP, New York; Neil Campbell McMillan Binch Chair, Antitrust Section, American Bar Mendelsohn LLP, Toronto, Ontario; Association Vice-Chair, Antitrust Committee, IBA J William Rowley QC McMillan Binch Legal Practice Division Mendelsohn, Toronto, Ontario; Chair, IBA Sandra Forbes Davies Ward Phillips & Global Forum for Competition and Trade Vineberg LLP, Toronto, Ontario Policy Panellists Panellists Peter Armitage Blake Dawson, Waldron, Dennis Carlton Deputy Assistant Attorney Sydney, New South Wales General, Antitrust Division, US Randy Hughes McCarthy Tetrault LLP, Department of Justice and Commissioner, Toronto, Ontario US Antitrust Modernisation Commission, Katherine Kay Stikeman Elliott LLP, Chicago, Illinois Toronto, Ontario Hon Mr Justice Marshall Rothstein James H Mutchnik Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Supreme Court