Canada ‘Behind the Ball’ with Weak Merger Law, Says Biating Report Author

loose merger law Canada underestimate of A new report overestimates the harm to competition and its benefits caused by a merger.

Canada’s Merger Law Gap Could Not Be Prevented of It’s the kind of acquisition that allows large companies to “eliminate competitive threats and establish advantages.” of International Governance Innovation Center.

Canada fell behindin other jurisdictions such as of US Fellow Keldon Bester said: of center and of the author of of report.

He likened Canada’s existing regime to a series of flawed brakes. “The law today is like the brakes on a car going downhill.

of The ‘permissibility’ of merger laws is of particular concern of His report adds that it is in the context of a growing digital economy full of unique challenges.

A merger, a transaction that combines two companies into one, may be subject to review by Canadian competition watchdogs to determine whether it is harmful to competition.

however, of Introduction of of Competition Act 1986, of Only 18 mergers have been challenged by competition bureaus. And, of particular concern, of Reportedly, it of The Secretariat has never won an appeal at the final hearing.

Recent polls suggest Canadians are concerned of situation.

An Ipsos survey conducted in January found that 88% of respondents agreed that more business competition is needed because “it’s too easy for big companies to take advantage of Canadians.”

of Equal proportions agreed that more competition among companies could lead to more choice and lower prices for consumers.

of A survey of 1,001 Canadians aged 18 and over was conducted from January 14-17. According to Ipsos, the online results are weighted and compare favorably with traditional surveys 19 out of 20 times with an error margin of ±3.5%.

one of of Problem of of the competition station of Transaction notification threshold of CIGI report says.

under of Competition Laws, Parties to Proposed Merger Must Notify of Competition Bureau, if the deal meets certain financial criteria.However, these thresholds do not include of The value of the of the transaction itself, of the report says.

it is in contrast of usa, where of The Federal Trade Commission has already been notified of mergers above a certain transaction amount.

Earlier this year, of commission and of The U.S. Department of Justice has announced a joint public inquiry to update merger guidelines to “better detect and prevent anticompetitive dealings.”

By comparison, Canada is a “method” behind‘ said Bestor.

another problem of The Competition Bureauof The hurdles to intervene in a merger are very high,” added Bestor, a researcher who studies competition and monopoly power in the United States. Canada.

That’s because the current law takes it into account. of He said the merger could improve efficiency. Loss of competition is permitted if: of The proposed merger is believed to lead to greater cost savings.

There is also a prejudice against blocking the merger outright, he said.

Instead, of The law favors negotiated agreements that contain concessions or remedies that address some issues. of Competitive concerns.These remedies do not have to address completely of Decreased competition caused by of merger, of the report says.

of The report proposes several changes to Canada’s merger law.

of Recommendations include expansion of trading range of Competition Bureau notified and extended of The time frame within which harmful mergers and changes should be blocked of Criteria used to evaluate whether a transaction should be blocked.

of the most high-profile proposed merger in Canada For now, Rogers’ proposed acquisition of Shaw is definitely a deal worth $26 billion.

bester said Canada There are stronger merger laws, of Rodgers and Shaw’s deal would have automatically been ‘dead-in’ of gave water of lack of competition in of telecommunications industry.

“With stronger merger law, this merger would not be proposed. of first place. “

Nevertheless, Canadian competition watchdogs are trying to block of It argues that this will reduce competition and lead to higher phone bills.

Rogers and Shaw are scheduled to appear before that of At competition court in November, they said: of transaction.

nevertheless of Federal liberals have recently made amendments to other parts of the federal government. of competition law, Canada No mention of merger law. Mr. Bestor blames the problem on “legal and financial devices” that profit from its generosity.

Banks, law firms and private equity groups are “interested in very lax merger laws because they increase revenue,” said Bestor.

“I didn’t really do anything today. of Because it is the merger side, Canada very behind of ball“

Nojud Al Marez