Who Gets In? Class Actions and Indirect Purchasers in Competition Law

Who Gets In? Class Actions and Indirect Purchasers in Competition Law 
Report of the C.D. Howe Institute Competition Policy Council 
TORONTO, Oct. 30, 2013 /CNW/ - The Supreme Court will rule on Thursday, 
October 31, in landmark Competition Act decisions, Pro-Sys v. Microsoft, 
Sun-Rype v. Archer Daniels Midland, and Infineon Technologies AG et autres c. 
Option Consommateurs et autres. The key question before the Court is, when 
anticompetitive cartel behaviour is alleged in class action proceedings, 
should indirect purchasers, such as retailers and end consumers, have standing 
to sue for damages? 
The Court's rulings will have important implications for class action law and 
competition practice. Given the structure of the Canadian economy, it may be 
that the group most affected by an international cartel's pricing behaviour 
will be indirect purchasers. Absent Canadian indirect purchasers having 
standing in a suit brought under the Competition Act, there could be no 
domestic route to a private action against an alleged cartel, or therefore no 
domestic compensation for those who have suffered loss. 
Accurately determining appropriate damages and to whom they should be awarded 
in cartel cases is a complex and uncertain undertaking. Whether, and to what 
extent, a cartel overcharge might get passed down the distribution chain is a 
difficult economic and practical question. Complexity, however, should not 
necessarily be a bar to indirect purchasers' obtaining standing, although they 
may make a class proceeding unmanageable. Given the likelihood that awards to 
individual class members might be very small, or zero, even should a suit 
succeed, it appears that deterrence, not compensation, should be the aim of 
law and policy. This is the consensus view of the C.D. Howe Institute's 
Competition Policy Council, which held its sixth meeting on October 24, 2013. 
The Competition Policy Council comprises top-ranked academics and 
practitioners active in the field of competition policy. The Council, chaired 
by Finn Poschmann, Vice President, Research at the C.D. Howe Institute, 
provides analysis of emerging competition policy issues. Professor Edward 
Iacobucci, Osler Chair in Business Law at the University of Toronto and 
Competition Policy Scholar at the Institute, advises the program, along with 
Benjamin Dachis, Senior Policy Analyst. The Council, whose members participate 
in their personal capacities, convenes a neutral forum to test competing 
visions and to share views on competition policy with practitioners, 
policymakers and the public. 
For the full Communique go to: 

SOURCE  C.D. Howe Institute 
contact: Finn Poschmann, Vice President, Research, or Benjamin Dachis,  Senior 
Policy Analyst, C.D. Howe Institute, 416-865-1904 
To view this news release in HTML formatting, please use the following URL: 
CO: C.D. Howe Institute
ST: Ontario
-0- Oct/30/2013 15:47 GMT
Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.