Canada: Trade Implications of Proposed Consumer Products Safety Act

Excerpt from North American Free Trade & Investment Report
published by WorldTrade Executive, Inc.

By Cliff Sosnow AND Elysia Van Zeyl
(Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP)

The federal government recently introduced new legislation that, when passed, will dramatically increase the obligations of Canadian companies and impose particularly onerous requirements on companies that import consumer products from foreign suppliers. This legislation, referred to as the Consumer Products Safety Act, follows several recent high-profile recalls affecting toys, food, and pharmaceuticals.

Recalls Will No Longer Be Voluntary
When approved, Bill C-52 will provide the Minister of Health with extensive powers to deal with products that pose health or safety risks to consumers, including the ability to issue mandatory recalls. This new power represents a significant change from the current system whereby product recalls are entirely voluntary. The Minister will also be given the authority to ban any product that poses an “existing or potential hazard”. Moreover, the Minister will be granted the ability to disclose confidential company information in the absence of company consent where it is believed that a product poses a “serious and imminent” health risk.

New Ministerial Powers to Order Health Safety Tests
The proposed legislation empowers the Minister to order an importer or manufacturer to conduct tests on consumer products and to compile any information that the Minister considers necessary to verify compliance with the Act or regulations. The Minister may also require importers or manufacturers to provide documents that contain information on the results of such tests within the timeframe to be determined by the Minister. Failure to comply with any such order by the Minister is an offence under the Act.

These obligations could pose difficulties for importers who may not have access to thorough and accurate information from their foreign suppliers. Furthermore, considering that international suppliers may not be required to comply with equivalent standards in their home country, there is no guarantee that such information or records even exist. Thus, in the absence of full co-operation by foreign suppliers, importers may have to choose between conducting tests themselves and providing the requisite information, facing penalties, or choosing new sources of supply from co-operating foreign suppliers.

To sign up for the free International Corporate Counsel Briefing

More information on North American Free Trade & Investment Report

What Will Happen to US Trade Agenda This Year?

Excerpt from North American Free Trade & Investment Report
published by WorldTrade Executive, Inc.

By Steven J. Mulder
(Greenberg Traurig)

It was with a certain amount of amusement -- if not disbelief -- when I recently read in an “Inside the Beltway” publication that there was “Still a Big Trade Agenda” for Congress to address this year. Huh? Really? While there may be a lot of trade legislation pending in Congress, it seems unlikely Congress will be able to approve much of it -- particularly before the elections -- in the current political environment, where anti-trade sentiment is clearly on the rise.

For one thing, the “trade agenda” is largely a priority of the Bush White House and the Democrats are in no mood to grant anything the Administration wants in its remaining months. The Democrats in the House and Senate are expected to make major gains in the November elections and thus they seem willing to simply “wait out” President Bush on most major legislative initiatives, including trade-related measures.

The Colombia Free Trade Agreement is a perfect example. The agreement, concluded over a year-and-a-half ago, is strongly supported by the President, who rarely misses an opportunity to raise the importance of its passage.

The President formally presented the agreement under the so-called “fast track” rules for Congressional consideration of free trade agreements back in April (fast track protects free trade agreements from amendment and filibusters in the congress).

However, the President took his action without the consent of the Democratic leadership, which clearly does not want to have to deal with the agreement. No problem: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) presented a Resolution to the House that simply removed fast track timeline (which vitiates the need for congress to consider it within 90 days), the Resolution passed with overwhelming Democratic support, and the agreement is now effectively “in limbo.”

Never mind that over 100 newspapers (even the New York Times!), too many former Democratic officials to count, and every business organization in the United States supports passage of the agreement -- unfortunately for the agreement, U.S. labor organizations have “drawn a line in the sand” against it and that would seem to be enough to stop its movement.

Supporters of the agreement are hoping that the Speaker will have a change of heart and allow the agreement to come up for a vote in a “lame duck” session of congress that would take place after the elections of November 4th. However, there is no assurance that such a session will take place. Democratic leaders are working hard to avoid such a scenario, but given that there is a range of “must pass” legislation that has to be enacted this year -- not the least of which are the 13 annual appropriations bill that keep the government running, none of which have been enacted at this point -- a lame duck session seems likely.

Other free trade agreements that are on the agenda include ones with Panama and Korea. For more information.

Managing Shop Committee Consultation in French Business Transfers

Excerpt from EuroWatch
published by WorldTrade Executive, Inc.

By Eric Cafritz, Frédérique Jaïs and Olivier Genicot (Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP)

French law requires employers to share information and consult with the shop committee in cases of M&A, and there are EU requirements as well.

There is controversy as to the appropriate time for management to disclose a transaction with potentially exposive labor consequences if the timing is wrong. It can also be surprising as to when the shop committee rules apply such as in cases where the transction is negotiated and managed entirely outside of France.

General Scope of Obligation to Consult with Shop
Committees with Respect to Business Combinations
Companies on both ends of acquisition transactions are required to inform and consult with their shop committees. Under Article L. 2323-19 of the Labor Code, an employer must inform and consult with the shop committee “regarding any modification in the economic or legal organization of the company, notably in the event of a merger, sale, (...), or acquisition or sale of a subsidiary within the meaning of Article L. 233-1 of the French Commercial Code.” The employer must consult with committee members regarding the effects that the contemplated transaction may have on employees.

Furthermore, where there are “exceptional circumstances affecting the employees’ interests to a considerable extent, particularly in the event of relocations, the closure of establishments or undertakings or collective redundancies,” the European shop committee (or, if applicable, the select committee),8 has the right to request a meeting with the employer so as to be informed and consulted regarding the contemplated transaction. It has the right to meet, at its request, the central management, or any other more appropriate level of management within the EU-wide company or group of companies having its own powers of decision, so as to be informed and consulted on measures significantly affecting employees’ interests.

Direct Changes of Control
The nature of the information and consultation duty differs as between the acquirer, the seller, and the target company.

With respect to the acquiring company, its shop committee must be informed and consulted prior to acquiring a stake in another entity. Although the acquisition of a stake is separately defined by Article L. 233-2 of the French Commercial Code as the acquisition of 10% to 50% of the share capital of another entity, the French Supreme Court has held that in the absence of a specific cross-reference to the Commercial Code in Article L. 2323-19 of the Labor Code, the acquisition of less than 10% of the equity of a target company triggers the obligation to inform and consult with the shop committee.

With respect to the seller, its shop committee must also be informed and consulted if it sells a subsidiary in which it holds more than 50% of the equity. According to case law, the seller’s shop committee must be informed and consulted no matter how insignificant the subsidiary may be to the seller.

For more information on EuroWatch

To sign up for the free International Corporate Counsel Briefing

US Trade Act Proposed

Excerpt from North American Free Trade & Investment Report
published by WorldTrade Executive, Inc.

By Kenneth G. Weigel, Thomas E. Crocker and Eric Shimp
(Alston & Bird LLP)

The Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment Act (TRADE Act) would seek to fundamentally change core tenets of U.S. trade agreements, mandate the renegotiation of several existing agreements, strengthen the role of Congress in trade policy, restrict fast track votes, and dilute the power of the federal government over the states in the area of trade and investment.
Fostered by core Democratic constituencies including ten major unions and NGOs, including Public Citizen and Friends of the Earth, the TRADE Act was launched on June 4. Democratic Representative Mike Michaud (ME) and Senator Sherrod Brown (OH) offered joint legislation aimed at a wholesale reform of the way the nation conducts trade policy. This bill will shape the debate over trade policy in Congress, on the campaign trail, and during the first year of the new presidential administration in 2009.

Key Provisions
The sprawling scope of the TRADE Act would compel key changes in U.S. trade policy, including:
• New objectives: Lays out new negotiating objectives, focusing specifically on trade and environment matters, and reducing the scope of provisions on investment and services disciplines.
• Trade agreement review: Mandates that GAO perform regular reviews of all existing trade agreements, examining data on job creation, wage levels, exports and imports, outsourcing and labor and environment issues. Criteria are clearly slanted to portray agreements as detrimental to the economy.
• Renegotiation: Compels the government to renegotiate all existing U.S. trade agreements, including NAFTA, to a) comply with new objectives and b) address faults found in review process.
• State opt outs: Would grant states the ability to reject all nontariff-related provisions of negotiated agreements (e.g., services, investment, government procurement, IPR). This particular provision is likely to cause significant problems for foreign trading partners who look to market access within the 50 states as a major benefit of FTAs with the United States.
• Services: Would move the U.S. to a positive list approach, thereby reducing potential market access gains for U.S. services providers in foreign markets.

To find out more about North American Free Trade & Investment Report

To receive your free International Corporate Counsel electronic briefing

EC Recommends Limiting Auditors’ Liability

Excerpt from EuroWatch
published by WorldTrade Executive, Inc.

by Andrea Hamilton
McDermott Will & Emery

The European Commission has issued a Recommendation to limit auditors’ civil liability with the objective of promoting the market entry of auditing firms that would otherwise be deterred by the threat of unlimited liability.

By encouraging new market entries, the Commission hopes that its Recommendation will protect European capital markets by ensuring that sufficient auditing capacity exists to perform statutory audits of EU-listed companies. This Recommendation is based on a mandate contained in the 2006 Directive on Statutory Audit, and reportedly also on an increasing trend of litigation and issues concerning insurance coverage in the auditing sector.

Member States are free to decide on the appropriate method for limiting liability and set caps for liability if they wish.

To find out more about EuroWatch

To receive your free International Corporate Counsel electronic briefing

Working Time Directive Agreement Reached

From EuroWatch.
published by WorldTrade Executive, Inc.
By Daniel Kelly
McDermott Will & Emery

The Employment and Social Affairs Council, following a meeting in Luxembourg on 10 June 2008, has adopted a Common Position on both the Working Time Directive and the Temporary Agency Workers Directive.

The agreement on the Working Time Directive only became possible after Spain and other countries overcame objections to an opt-out that allows an increase in the weekly cap to 60 working hours. A distinction was also drawn between “active” and “inactive” on-call time, allowing greater flexibility for doctors struggling to keep average weekly working hours below the agreed limit. Agreement on the Temporary Agency Workers Directive was reached after, Member States were given the option of derogating from the requirement of equal treatment as of day one for temporary agency workers in terms of pay, maternity leave and annual leave.

The Council Common Positions will now be sent to the European Parliament for a second opinion. If they are passed, they will return to the Council of Ministers for a second round of approvals, at which stage they will become EU Law.

To find out more about EuroWatch

To receive your free International Corporate Counsel electronic briefing

Is Comparative Advertising Going to Become Easier in Europe?

Excerpt from EuroWatch
published by WorldTrade Executive, Inc.

By Sahira Khwaja (Lovells LLP)

In answer to a reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) from the English Court of Appeal, Advocate General Mengozzi has issued an opinion which may make it more difficult for brand owners to stop comparative advertising by competitors.

The questions arose in a dispute in the mobile phone market between O2 and Hutchison 3G. In 2004 Hutchison ran a TV advertising campaign comparing its new pay-as-you-go service with that of O2 and other operators, implying it was cheaper.

If the ECJ agrees with the Advocate General’s reasoning that use of a competitor’s trademark in a comparative advertisement should be controlled under the Advertising Directive and not the TradeMark Directive, this will affect brand owners’ ability to enforce their rights, in some countries at least. A brand owner will not be able to sue for trademark infringement but will have to take whatever action it can under the national law implementing the Advertising Directive.

In the UK, for example, this would have a major impact as enforcement of those implementing regulations is by public bodies (the Office of Fair Trading and local authority Trading Standard Services). These have limited resources and objections of this type would be low priority (unless there was likely to be serious damage to consumers). There is no private right of action under the regulations, and complaints must be made to the public bodies. These usually only act if the complainant has first followed the complaints procedure run by the Advertising Standards Authority (the voluntary industry body), which may take two or three months.

To find out more about EuroWatch

To receive your free International Corporate Counsel electronic briefing