Prior to the 1986 Amendments to the Canadian Competition Act,cases
Prior to the 1986 amendments to the Canadian Competition Act,cases brought against mergers were almost always unsuccessful.The reason most often cited for this is
A)that merging firms were always successful in destroying the incriminating evidence.
B)that judges were influenced.
C)that mergers that were detrimental to the public interest previously fell under criminal law,rather than civil law,making them particularly hard to prove.
D)that mergers that were detrimental to the public interest previously fell under civil law,rather than criminal law,making them particularly hard to prove.
E)the lack of a director responsible for prosecution.
An allowable defence for a merger according to Canadaʹs Competition Bureau is that
A)merging firms find it easier to decide how they will share the market.
B)merging firms are more profitable because they no longer have to compete with one another.
C)the gains in efficiency resulting from the merger more than offset any reductions in competition.
D)merged and therefore bigger firms are better placed to compete globally.
E)larger firms are easier to regulate.
In Canada,a significant challenge for the Competition Bureau when reviewing a possible merger between firms in a concentrated industry is to
A)determine whether efficiency gains make the merger desirable.
B)determine whether monopoly no longer poses a threat to the Canadian economy.
C)impose effective entry barriers to the industry.
D)determine whether criminal charges are required due to unlawful collusion.
E)allow those mergers that lead to larger firms that are easier to regulate.
In Canada,the Competition Act specifies that in antitrust cases the ʺwatchdogʺ is the
B)Commissioner of the Competition Bureau.
C)Supreme Court of Canada.
D)minister responsible for Industry Canada.