January Antitrust Bulletin - January 20, 2012

Government Not Required to Identify Exculpatory Evidence in Discovery

On Dec. 23, 2011, a district court denied a motion to compel filed by defendants in ongoing litigation regarding alleged price fixing in the market for liquid crystal display panels used in computers and televisions. Defendants had sought to require the government to identify where in the voluminous discovery produced certain exculpatory material exists, arguing that the government had failed to comply with its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). But the court ruled that the government has no obligation to affirmatively identify particular pieces of exculpatory evidence, nor is it required to produce internal communications relating to plea negotiations absent a separate basis for disclosure.

Canadian Competition Bureau Updates Merger Review Guidelines

On Jan. 11, 2012, the Canadian Competition Bureau issued revised Merger Review Process Guidelines, updating the guidelines originally published in September 2009. The guidelines describe the Bureau's general approach to administering its two-stage merger review process, which is applicable to proposed transactions that exceed certain thresholds and are subject to mandatory premerger notification filing under the Competition Act. The Act establishes an initial 30-day waiting period during which the parties cannot close the transaction. This initial waiting period can be extended if the Bureau issues a supplementary information request (SIR) – similar to "second requests" issued in the United States – to obtain more information to determine the competitive impact of the transaction. The amendments to the merger review process do not affect the Bureau's substantive approach to merger review.

Antitrust Division Continues to Prioritize Criminal Enforcement Program

On Dec. 7, 2011...