Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Other Antitrust and Trade Regulation developments, (Aug 1, 2016)

A periodic roundup of other items of interest to the Antitrust and Trade Regulation community:

ANTITRUST NEWS: The Canada Competition Bureau has released its "2016-2017 Annual Plan: Strengthening Competition to Drive Innovation." The plan identifies five objectives, including: (1) increasing compliance and preventing and deterring anticompetitive or deceptive conduct that could threaten the health, growth, and confidence of the Canadian economy; (2) empowering Canadians by creating an environment of competitive prices, greater product choice, and informed decision-making; (3) promoting competition by emphasizing smart regulation focused on achieving legitimate regulatory objectives; (4) collaborating with domestic and international partners to promote strong competition principles and expand opportunities for Canadian participation in world markets; and (5) promoting a culture of excellence throughout the Competition Bureau founded on openness, collaboration and engagement, and securing tangible results.

CONSUMER PROTECTION—D. Ariz: Hanover Insurance Co. has been ordered to pay defense costs incurred in an FTC action, as it relates to an insured individual’s participation in a purported pyramid scheme that lured college students and other young adults with the prospect of getting rich without having a traditional 9-to-5 job. The insured individual demonstrated that the law and facts clearly favored him showing a likelihood of success on the merits that the FTC action was a claim first made against him and the company he controlled—Vemma International Holdings Inc.—under the applicable policy, that the individual and Vemma were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tipped in his favor, and an injunction prohibiting the insurance company from withholding payment of the defense expenses incurred in the FTC action on behalf of the individual was in the public interest (Hanover Insurance Co. v. Vemma International Holdings Inc., July 29, 2016, Tuchi, J.).

Attorneys: Daniel E. Tranen (Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP) and Mark G. Worischeck (Sanders & Parks PC) for Hanover Insurance Co. Keith Beauchamp (Coppersmith Brockelman PLC) for Vemma International Holdings Inc.

Companies: Hanover Insurance Co.; Vemma International Holdings Inc.

News: Antitrust ConsumerProtection FederalTradeCommissionNews ArizonaNews